Court Opinion

ID: 9447296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:31:08.644722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:58.700815
License: Public Domain

BAZELON, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Notwithstanding my disagreement with the Court’s two earlier opinions in this case and its orders of April 11, 1956 and June 16, 1958, I treat them as controlling in considering the points discussed by the majority in the present opinion.
As to Point I, I would reverse and remand because of the Board’s violation of our original opinion of December 23, 1954, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 66, 109-110, 223 F.2d 531, 574-575. A finding which we there ordered stricken is now still relied on by the Board.
As to Points II, III and V (as to Mark-ward), I concur only in the result reached by the majority.
As to Point IV, I would reverse and remand. By fault of the Government, the Party was precluded from obtaining use of Budenz’s statement for purposes of cross-examining him while he was still available. Without such cross-examination the Party is denied its right to show the extent, if any, to which the rest of Budenz’s testimony is tainted. If, upon the remand I would order, Budenz were not available, his entire testimony would have to be stricken.
*84In light of my disposition of Points I and IV, I do not reach consideration of Point VI — namely, whether the Board's order is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.