385 U.S. 26 (1966), 1029, Black v. United States

Docket Nº:No. 1029, October Term, 1965
Citation:385 U.S. 26, 87 S.Ct. 190, 17 L.Ed.2d 26
Party Name:Black v. United States
Case Date:November 07, 1966
Court:United States Supreme Court

Page 26

385 U.S. 26 (1966)

87 S.Ct. 190, 17 L.Ed.2d 26



United States

No. 1029, October Term, 1965

United States Supreme Court

Nov. 7, 1966

Certiorari denied May 2, 1966

Rehearing and certiorari granted,



After denial of certiorari in this case, the Solicitor General voluntarily advised that, in connection with another matter, monitoring petitioner's room disclosed conversations between petitioner and his attorney at the time this case was being presented to the Grand Jury. Notes and reports made therefrom were forwarded later to Tax Division attorneys for use in preparation for trial in the case. The Solicitor General also advised that these attorneys did not regard the material as relevant and did not know it included attorney-client conversations, and suggested that the judgment be vacated and remanded to the District Court for a hearing at which the material would be produced and the court could determine whether the conviction should stand. In view of the report of the Solicitor General and in order to make certain that petitioner be accorded a trial free from any inadmissible evidence, held: the judgment should be vacated, and the case remanded for a new trial.

Rehearing and certiorari granted; 122 U.S.App.D.C. 347, 353 F.2d 885, vacated and remanded.

Per curiam opinion.


In Davis v. United States, 385 U.S. 927, we today denied the petition for certiorari. The sole question raised there (but not passed upon by the Court of Appeals because not necessary to its disposition) involved petitioners' claim that conferences between petitioners and their counsel were surreptitiously overheard

Page 27

and intercepted by law enforcement officials through concealed monitorial devices built into the jail where petitioners were being [87 S.Ct. 191] held for federal authorities. The Solicitor General did not deny the existence of the devices, but said that there were no recordings of the conversations in question. He pointed out that, since the case has been remanded by the Court of Appeals for a new trial on other grounds, a full exploration of this question could be made on retrial. In the light of these representations, we denied the petition for certiorari so that the question might be fully explored at the new trial, as suggested by the Solicitor General.

In the instant case, Black v. United States, the petition for rehearing now raises a similar question, and, while Davis v. United States, supra, is not controlling, its relation is obvious. In Black, the Solicitor General advised the Court voluntarily on May 24, 1966, after the petition for...

To continue reading