DENNIS v. U.S., 382 U.S. 915 (1965)

U.S. Supreme Court

DENNIS v. U.S. , 382 U.S. 915 (1965)

382 U.S. 915

Raymond DENNIS et al., petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 502.

Supreme Court of the United States

November 15, 1965

Nathan Witt, George J. Francis and Telford Taylor, for petitioners.

Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Yeagley and George B. Searls, for the United States.

Gerhard P. Van Arkel, Charles F. Brannan, John F. O'Donnell, Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Eugene Cotton Melvin L. Wulf, Jacob Sheinkman, Joseph M. Jacobs, and John Ligtenberg, for the American Civil Liberties Union and others.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted limited to Questions 1, 2, and 3 presented by the petition, which read as follows:

    '1. Whether the indictment states the offense of conspiracy to defraud the United States;
    '2. Whether, in the comparative light of American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 [], and United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 [], Section 9(h) of the Taft-Hartley Act is constitutional;
    '3. Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioners' motions for the production, to the defense or the Court, of grand jury testimony of prosecution witnesses.'[ Dennis v. U.S. 382 U.S. 915 (1965) ]
 


U.S. Supreme Court

DENNIS v. U.S. , 382 U.S. 915 (1965)

 382 U.S. 915

Raymond DENNIS et al., petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 502.

Supreme Court of the United States

November 15, 1965

Nathan Witt, George J. Francis and Telford Taylor, for petitioners.

Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Yeagley and George B. Searls, for the United States.

Gerhard P. Van Arkel, Charles F. Brannan, John F. O'Donnell, Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Eugene Cotton Melvin L. Wulf, Jacob Sheinkman, Joseph M. Jacobs, and John Ligtenberg, for the American Civil Liberties Union and others.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted limited to Questions 1, 2, and 3 presented by the petition, which read as follows:

    '1. Whether the indictment states the offense of conspiracy to defraud the United States;
    '2. Whether, in the comparative light of American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 [], and United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 [], Section 9(h) of the Taft-Hartley Act is constitutional;
    '3. Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioners' motions for the production, to the defense or the Court, of grand jury testimony of prosecution witnesses.'[ Dennis v. U.S. 382 U.S. 915 (1965) ]
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.