Court Opinion

ID: 9422669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:03:52.451027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:38.289210
License: Public Domain

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.