Dennis v. United States

Decision Date15 November 1965
Docket NumberNo. 502,502
Citation15 L.Ed.2d 231,86 S.Ct. 291,382 U.S. 915
PartiesRaymond DENNIS et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Nathan Witt, George J. Francis and Telford Taylor, for petitioners.

Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Yeagley and George B. Searls, for the United States.

Gerhard P. Van Arkel, Charles F. Brannan, John F. O'Donnell, Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Eugene Cotton Melvin L. Wulf, Jacob Sheinkman, Joseph M. Jacobs, and John Ligtenberg, for the American Civil Liberties Union and others.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted limited to Questions 1, 2, and 3 presented by the petition, which read as follows:

'1. Whether the indictment states the offense of conspiracy to defraud the United States;

'2. Whether, in the comparative light of American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 [70 S.Ct. 674, 94 L.Ed. 925], and United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 [85 S.Ct. 1707, 14 L.Ed.2d 484], Section 9(h) of the Taft-Hartley Act is constitutional;

'3. Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioners' motions for the production, to the defense or the Court, of grand jury testimony of prosecution witnesses.'

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Dennis v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 20 Junio 1966
    ...three years' imprisonment and fined $2,000. This time, the Court of Appeals affirmed. 346 F.2d 10. We granted certiorari (382 U.S. 915, 86 S.Ct. 291, 15 L.Ed.2d 231) limited to three '1. Whether the indictment states the offense of conspiracy to defraud the United States; '2. Whether, in th......
  • Cheff v. Schnackenberg
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 6 Junio 1966
    ...J.). 3. This question was never raised in Pappadio nor encompassed by the limited grant of certiorari in that case, see 382 U.S. 916, 86 S.Ct. 287, 15 L.Ed.2d 231, in Shillitani, where the issue is properly before the Court, petitioner, filed a certiorari petition discussing the point but t......
  • Pacheco v. State
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • 16 Mayo 1966
    ... ... 177] proper cautionary instructions 2 are given. United States v. Dardi, 330 F.2d 316, 333 (2d Cir.1964); United States v. Crosby, 294 F.2d 928, 948, 950 ... ...
  • Sheppard v. Maxwell
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 6 Junio 1966
    ... ... 1 The United States District Court held that he was not afforded a fair trial and granted the writ subject to ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT