◆ SpookStack

| . & &y Court's making "standards", Next the opinion said the "practice" of producing government documents for the trial judge to inspect and decide whether to disclose is "disapproved". There is nothing in the Constitution or law giving the Court or any four judges the "veto" power to disapprove law. “This fashions a new rule of evidence which is foreign to our federal jurisprudence, The rule has always been to the contrary." said the dissenting opinion: (page 680). “Every federal jutje and every lawyer of federal experience knows that it is not the present rule." "Even the defense attorneys did not have the temerity to ask for such a sweeping decision." The Court volunteered more comfort to the suspect than he or his attorney had the gall to ask.Not only was such action illegal, but it was injurious according to J. Edgar Hoover, as quoted in the dissent: (p. 683) “If spread upon the record, criminals, foreign agents, subversives, and others would be forwarned and would seek methods to carry out their activities --- and thus defeat the very purpose for which the FBI was created," Strangely enough, neither side of the Court referred to the law of Congress directly relating to the use of FBI filese Title 5, US Code $22, expressly authorized the Attorney General (Department of Justice) to make regulations respecting: ; "--- the custody, use andpreservation of the records, papers and property appertaining to it." Tne Department of Justice, by Order #3229, had probibited disclosure of such documents “_-- except at the discretion of the Attorney General." That rule was duly filed and published and was binding on Supreme Court judges. The rule of the Attorney General wasSimply an affirmation of a long standing general rule whereby executive departments, under the President, are at liberty to keep information con-~ 266.