United States v. Joel Rosenberg

Third Circuit

United States v. Joel Rosenberg

245 F.2d 870

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedAugust 14, 1957

Docket12209_1

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 245 F.2d 870 (United States v. Joel Rosenberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Joel Rosenberg, 245 F.2d 870 (3d Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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 *871 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

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 *871 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 F.2d 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-joel-rosenberg-ca3-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack