Harry Lev v. United States
Lev v. United States; Wool v. United States; And Rubin v. United States
Opinion
On petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
In No. 435 the petition for writ of certiorari is granted limited to questions 5, 6, and 7 presented by the petition for the writ which read as follows:
“5. Is it proper for a reviewing court to make an examination in camera of a sealed summary of a witness’s prior statement to a government investigator furnished it by the prosecutor and of ex parte affidavits pertaining to the *904 summary in order to determine whether the summary is discoverable under the provisions of Title 18 U. S. C., Section 3500 , when no claim is made that it contained irrelevant or extraneous matter?
Anthony Bradley Eben for petitioner in No. 435.
Albert H. Treiman for petitioner in No. 436.
Isidor En-selman for petitioner in No. 437.
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Anderson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Julia P. Cooper for the United States.
“6. Are not summaries and reports of prior statements made by witnesses to a government investigator available to the defendant under the provisions of Title 18 U. S. C., Section 3500 ?
“7.
Does Title 18 U. S. C. Section 3500 provide the sole procedure by which such summaries and reports are to be made available to defendants?”
In No. 436 the petition for writ of certiorari is granted limited to question 2 presented by the petition for the writ which reads as follows:
“2.
Whether the rights of the petitioner were substantially prejudiced when the trial court denied the motion of the defendants to direct the Government to produce a statement which a witness for the Government had previously given to government agents, in direct violation of this Court’s decision in Jencks v. U. S., 353 U. S. 657 .”
In No. 437 the petition for writ of certiorari is granted.
The cases are consolidated and a total of three hours is allowed for oral argument.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications.
Reported below: 258 F. 2d 9 .
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.