Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1959-06-23

-. In a series OF cases the
1encks Act. rather than the &C
governs what information the
from the Government in Grim
inal cases.
The act was passed following
criticism by prosecution officials
and members of Congress Of a
1857. court decision in a case
involving Clifford Jencks.
labor organizer convicted of
classifying a non Communist
afBdavit.
in that case. the high tribu-
nal had ruled that pertinent
statements made by Govern
meat witnesses to Government
agents prior to trial must be
handed over to the defense for
crosS-examination purposes.
This had been interpreted by
some. including Justice Clark.
as being tantamount to ap-
proving the rifling of FBI files.
: Defines Statements
One section of the congress
sional act defines as state
ments" that must be turned
over If pertinent: aa
(lfA written statement made
by the witness and approved by
him; or CD a recording or
Transcription which is a Sub
stantiaily verbatim" recital Of
an oral statement made by a
witness to an agent and re-
corded contemporaneously.
The act also empowers the
trial judge to determine in
private whether certain state
merits may be withheld as not
pertinent.
The court acted on three cases
posing Jencks Act problems.
Whih the. justices agreed on the
validity of the act itself, they
split on its Interpretation. From
a welter Of viewpoints, these
additional facts emerged as the
ultimate holdings:
/. The congressional act is
the controlling standard on
what information must be
given.
2. The Jencks decision was
not based on constitutional
grounds but was merely a rule
laid down by the court which
now is superseded by the act.
3.-Generally. an agents
summary of a pre-trial inter-
view with a Government wit
ness is not the type Of state |
ment" that must be turned |
over.
Harm Seen
According to Government !
lawyers. compelled production |
Of such summaries would re-
veal investigative methods, in
lure possibly innocent persons
mentioned in the account, and |
unfairly handicap the Govern
ment in that the credibility |
of its witnesses would be tested |
against what an agent said they |
said -
In the first case decided yes
terday, the court unanimously
affirmed the income tax evasion |
conviction Of DR.. Anthiny Pal |
ermo. former club physician |
for the old New York Giants. |
DR.. Palermo had sought rever-
sal on the ground that re-
fusal to turn over to him |
a summary of a witness inter-
view with a Federal agent |
violated both the Jencks Act |
and the Jencks decision. He
also attacked the constitution |
atty of the act.
While all justices agreed /
with Justice Frankfurter's opin-
ion upholding the act and
affirming the conviction. four
of the jurists thought he went
further than necessary in his
Interpretation Of the act.
The four-Chief Justice War
rem and Justices Brennan,
Black and Douglas, said that
many more concrete cases
must be adjudicated before
we shall be familiar with all
the problems created by the
statute" They suggested there
may be situations when sum-
maries must be produced to
meet constitutional require
ments.
Conviction Upheld II
In another Jencks-type CASE
the court, splitting A with
Justice Stewart not partici-
pating, upheld the fraud con-
spiracy convictions Of Harry
(the Hat Lev, New York hat
manufacturer, and two asso-
ciates, Marvin Rubin and for
mer Army Capt. Raymond
Wool.
The three had been con-
victed Of conspiring to defraud
the Government in military hat
contracts and sentenced to
varying prison terms. They
had appealed largely on the
ground that the trial Judge
committed a prejudicial error
in not turning over certain
statements made by witnesses
to Government agents.
The court gave no reasons in
its one-sentence opinion. An
evenly divided court means
affirmance Of the lower courts
judgment.
In the third case, the court