Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Supreme Court — Part 17
Page 106
106 / 130
UA
*
ee
Lf
Court against Marshall - The Jencks Case
John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States during
37 formative years, the founder of the original Supreme Court
tradition, is the victim in this case. Jencks v US 353
US 657. The Court quoted Marshall in support of the ruling
to aid Jencks. It pulled a few sentences out of context
and to rule contrary to the Marshall ruling,as fully explained
later in this story.
Jencks was president of one of the Mine, Mill and Smel- -
ters unions. To have important statutory privileges for the
union, Jencks made an affidavit that “he was not on April
2, 1950, a member of the Communist Party or affiliated with
such Party." (p. 659). He was convicted for false
swearing inmaking such affidavit. The conviction was
affirmed by the United States Court of Appeal. Then the
Supreme Court came to his relief.
Two of the witnesses for the prosectuion were FBI men
operating within the Communist Party. They had been making
regular reports to the FBI. This information went into the
confidential files of the Justice Department.
During the trial the witnesses did not use the files
but the lawyers for Jencks demanded their production. The
trial judge refused to compel the FBI to produce them.
Obviously the files would include much material having no
bearing on the Jencks case and which might by disclosure
injure many innocent people as well as hamper future
surveillance. The opinion stated that the Supreme Court had
previously ruled that it was up to the trial judge to decide
upon production of such files. (p.668). "This Court held in
Goldman v United States, 316 US 129, 132, that the trial
judge had discretion to deny inspection---". With no
hesitation, it calmly declared the opposite:
"We now hold that the petitioner was entitled to
an order directing the Government to produce for
inspection all reports of ---."
The Court made no pretense that any law so required.
Instead it just cited "our standards". No-one knows what such
"standards" are. The Constitution does not mention.the
265.
Reveal the original PDF page, then click a word to highlight the OCR text.
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
letter
bureau
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic