United States v. Rosenberg, 12209.
| Decision Date | 26 June 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 12209.,12209. |
| Citation | 245 F.2d 870 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Joel ROSENBERG, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Edward M. Dangel, Boston, Mass. (Alexander Osinoff, Philadelphia, Pa., Anthony J. Albert, Santa Fe, N. M., Stanley B. Singer, Philadelphia, Pa., Leo E. Sherry, Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellant.
Norman C. Henss, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa. (G. Clinton Fogwell, Jr., U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARIS, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction in a criminal case. The trial judge denied a pre-trial motion by counsel for the defendant for leave to examine the testimony given before the grand jury by Meierdiercks, a witness for the Government, and a statement which he had given to the F.B.I. During the trial the testimony and statement were produced to the trial judge for his examination in camera. He examined them and indicated to counsel for the defendant wherein the witness' testimony in court differed, but counsel for the defendant was not permitted to inspect them himself. This was in accordance with the practice heretofore generally followed. See United States v. Lebron, 2 Cir., 1955, 222 F.2d 531, 536-537. That practice has, however, now been definitely disapproved by the Supreme Court. Jencks v. United States, 1957, 353 U.S. ___, 77 S.Ct. 1007. The failure of the trial judge to permit counsel for the defendant to inspect at the trial the witness' grand jury testimony and statement to the F.B.I., as required by the rule announced in the Jencks case, compels us to grant a new trial. Under the circumstances it is unnecessary for us to consider any of the other errors alleged by the defendant.
The judgment of conviction will be reversed and a new trial will be ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hunt
...Term of the Supreme Court,' 43 Va.L.Rev. 803, 821 (1957). See United States v. Killian, 246 F.2d 77 (7 Cir., 1957); United States v. Rosenberg, 245 F.2d 870 (3 Cir., 1957). In People v. Moses, supra, the defendant was charged with armed robbery and at the trial identification testimony was ......
-
United States v. National Dairy Products Corporation, 20542.
...at 1851). If we should read and apply Dennis as broadly as the defendant suggests we would miss the mark as far as United States v. Rosenberg, 3 Cir. 1957, 245 F.2d 870, missed when it applied Jencks to grand jury minutes. The Supreme Court accurately described the Congressional reaction to......
-
United States v. Consolidated Laundries Corporation
...U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 1861, 1863. Among these decisions was one by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, United States v. Rosenberg, 3 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 870,11 relied upon by the defendants here. In the Rosenberg decision, the Third Circuit held, in a short per curiam opinio......
-
United States v. Papworth, Cr. No. 9775.
...by the defense prior to the trial. At page 1863 "There was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit United States v. Rosenberg, 245 F.2d 870 in which the circuit judges, on June 26, 1957, interpreted the opinion in the Jencks case as requiring a trial judge to perm......