REMINGTON
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1952-03-24
No. 387
Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this application., with whom Mr. Justice Douglas concurs,
343 U.S. 907 Supreme Court of the United States (1952) Positive Treatment
Cited by 26 cases
Dissent
Mr. Justice Black,

Mr. Justice Black,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas concurs,

dissenting.

A federal district court grand jury indicted petitioner for perjury. A petit jury convicted him. The Court of Appeals reversed but refused to order the indictment dismissed. 191 F. 2d 246. Petitioner is now seeking cer-tiorari, claiming that the indictment should have been dismissed. The majority now denies his petition. I think we should grant and consider two questions the petitioner presents. These questions challenge the fairness of the prosecutorial methods used to obtain and to sustain the indictment.

The first challenge is:

“The Circuit Court of Appeals erred:
“In failing to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the foreman of the indicting grand jury, at the very time the indictment was returned, was the financial and literary collaborator of the chief prosecution witness in a book-publishing venture whose success depended upon the defendant’s indictment.” The second challenge is:
"The United States Attorney deliberately withheld information concerning the collaboration of Bentley and Brunini from defendant’s counsel and then sought to suppress the evidence when it became known to defendant’s counsel from other sources.”

Governmental conduct here charged is abhorrent to a fair administration of justice. It approaches the type of practices unanimously condemned by this Court as a violation of due process of law in Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103. For this reason I have felt constrained to depart from my custom and give reasons for my vote to grant certiorari in this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

  • Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (U.S. 1966)
    …utes, the Court in Pittsburgh Plate Glass did not pass upon the adequacy of that technique for protecting a defendant’s interests. 360 U. S., at 401. See, e. g., United States v. Remington, 191 F. 2d 246, 250-251 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1951), cert. denied, 343 U. S. 907 (defendant charged with commission of perjury before the grand jury); Atlantic City Electric Co. v. A. B. Chance Co., 313 F. 2d 431 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1963) (use by private plaintiff in antitrust suit of witness’ grand jury testimony); and cases cited i…
  • United States v. Rose, 215 F.2d 617 (3d Cir. 1954)
    …sure of matters occurring before the grand jury “ * * * when so directed by the court preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding * * * ." 19 In United States v. Remington, 2 Cir., 1951, 191 F. 2d 246, 250, certiorari denied, 1952, 343 U.S. 907, 72 S.Ct. 580, 96 L.Ed. 1325, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was faced with the same issue which is raised here. The defendant had been found guilty of the crime of perjury in testifying before a grand jury that he had never been a memb…
  • United States v. Marchisio, 344 F.2d 653 (2d Cir. 1965)
    …falsity of the defendant’s oath without alleging what the truth was. United States v. Hiss, 185 F. 2d 822 (2 Cir. 1950), cert. den. 340 U.S. 948, 71 S.Ct. 532, 95 L.Ed. 683 (1951); United States v. Remington, 191 F. 2d 246 (2 Cir. 1951), cert. den. 343 U.S. 907, 72 S.Ct. 580, 96 L.Ed. 1325 (1952); Sharron v. United States, 11 F. 2d 689 (2 Cir. 1926). Cf. United States v. Lattimore, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 268, 215 F. 2d 847, 861 n. 7 (1954). Thus, the “truth” paragraphs were merely surplusage. See United States v.…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw