EVOLA
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1963-10-21
No. 194
with whom Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White join,
375 U.S. 32 Supreme Court of the United States (1963) Caution
Also reported at: 11 L. Ed. 2d 106 · 84 S. Ct. 24 · 1963 U.S. LEXIS 386 · SCDB 1963-013
Cited by 46 cases
Topics
Confession Of Error Plenary Review Certiorari

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Confession Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The petitions for writs of certiorari in Nos. 194, 195, 196 and 197, and the motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as the petitions for certiorari in No. 79, Misc., No. 80, Misc., No. 115, Misc., No. 149, Misc., and No. 224, Misc., are granted.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is vacated and the cases are remanded to that court for reconsideration in light of Campbell v. United States, 373 U. S. 487, and for such further consideration as may be appropriate.

Other
Mr. Justice Clark,

Mr. Justice Clark,

with whom Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White join,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I realize, of course, that in remanding these cases the Court neither decides that Campbell governs nor implies how the Court of Appeals should decide them. Nevertheless, I would grant the petitions for certiorari and set these cases for argument, since it is my feeling that it is futile to remand “for reconsideration in light of Campbell v. United States, 373 U. S. 487.”

Although these cases were decided prior to Campbell, the Court of Appeals’ disposition has support in the record and is worthy of argument.* All the evidence before the District Court was documentary and the Court of Appeals was therefore correct in making factual determinations on the basis of such evidence.

*

I deem plenary consideration here preferable to this remand because the delineation of the limits of the Jencks Act has been peculiarly the province of this Court. The remand will merely delay a final decision which could be made on the record now before the Court and the identical record will no doubt return here no matter what determination is made by the Court of Appeals.

While the Government accepts the District Court’s finding that the Shaw notes should have been produced under 18 U. S. C. § 3500, this does not reheve the courts of the obligation to examine independently the error confessed. Gibson v. United States, 329 U. S. 338, and Young v. United States, 315 U. S. 257.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

  • United States v. Borelli, 336 F.2d 376 (2d Cir. 1964)
    …clothes him with the defense of double jeopardy. See United States v. Aviles, 274 F. 2d 179, 193 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 974, 982, 80 S.Ct. 1057, 4 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1960), further proceedings remanded on other grounds, Evola v. United States, 375 U.S. 32, 84 S.Ct. 24, 11 L.Ed.2d 106 (1963). . As was persuasively said in the Solicitor General’s brief (p. 79), “When conspirators have set a dynamite machine with a timed fuse in position to blow up a building and go away and leave it to do its destruct…
  • United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1964)
    …gment of Court of Appeals); Corey v. United States, 375 U. S. 169 (petition for certiorari filed 30 days after denial of rehearing, 45 days after original judgment of Court of Appeals); Genovese v. United States, decided with Evola v. United States, 375 U. S. 32 (order extending time for filing entered 16 days after denial of rehearing and rehearing en banc, 49 days after entry of original judgment). In Craig v. United States, 298 U. S. 637, this Court dismissed an application for a writ of certiorari as…
  • Am. Express Warehousing, Ltd. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 380 F.2d 277 (2d Cir. 1967)
    …requiring production over a claim of attorney-client privilege. . Wright, Federal Courts 312 (1963). . Similarly distinguishable are: First Nat’l City Bank v. Aristeguieta, 287 F. 2d 219 (2d Cir. 1960), vacated as moot, 375 U.S. 48, 84 S.Ct. 144, 11 L.Ed.2d 106 (1963) (discovery in extradition proceedings, which are not directly judicially reviewable) ; Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. City of Burlington, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 65, 351 F. 2d 762 (1965) (discovery order in an electrical antitrust case quashing subpoen…

Previewing 3 of 14 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