Add to ORKGIn a criminal prosecution under the anti-trust laws, counsel for the United States, in the cross-examination of witnesses for the defense, based certain questions upon a transcript of the testimony of these same witnesses before the grand jury. The transcripts were used for the sole purpose of refreshing the memories of the hostile witnesses. The transcripts were not placed in the hands of the witnesses, but the witnesses were asked, Did you testify thus-and-so before the grand jury? The district court refused the demand of the defense counsel that they be allowed to inspect the transcript thus used for the purpose of re-direct examination of the witnesses. Held, such refusal was erroneous. United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. Inc., (C....
A witness called to testify is presumed to be of good character. Hence no proof of it is necessary. ...
Appellant who was convicted of committing a criminal abortion, moved for a new trial alleging as err...
The Supreme Court has held that a grand jury witness offered immunity is not entitled to a suppressi...
In a criminal prosecution under the anti-trust laws, counsel for the United States, in the cross-exa...
Defendant was indicted for murder by a grand jury. The trial court denied a motion by defendant requ...
Three weeks after the close of a grand jury investigation of charges of criminal antitrust violation...
Defendants, however, have raised serious constitutional objections to the introduction of grand jury...
To attack the credibility of defendant charged with larceny of an automobile, the prosecution cross-...
On trial in a district court for bribing a federal revenue agent, defendant called five witnesses to...
Respondent was accused of unfair labor practices. At the hearing before the trial examiner, responde...
Although it had been previously recognized that a defendant was entitled to inspect grand jury testi...
Witness testified before a federal grand jury regarding his participation in acts regarded by the gr...
D was convicted of second degree burglary. During the cross examination of three character witnesses...
The prior consistent statement of a witness was properly admitted to refute an inference of recent f...
Defendant was convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001. During the trial, the court denied defend...
A witness called to testify is presumed to be of good character. Hence no proof of it is necessary. ...
Appellant who was convicted of committing a criminal abortion, moved for a new trial alleging as err...
The Supreme Court has held that a grand jury witness offered immunity is not entitled to a suppressi...
In a criminal prosecution under the anti-trust laws, counsel for the United States, in the cross-exa...
Defendant was indicted for murder by a grand jury. The trial court denied a motion by defendant requ...
Three weeks after the close of a grand jury investigation of charges of criminal antitrust violation...
Defendants, however, have raised serious constitutional objections to the introduction of grand jury...
To attack the credibility of defendant charged with larceny of an automobile, the prosecution cross-...
On trial in a district court for bribing a federal revenue agent, defendant called five witnesses to...
Respondent was accused of unfair labor practices. At the hearing before the trial examiner, responde...
Although it had been previously recognized that a defendant was entitled to inspect grand jury testi...
Witness testified before a federal grand jury regarding his participation in acts regarded by the gr...
D was convicted of second degree burglary. During the cross examination of three character witnesses...
The prior consistent statement of a witness was properly admitted to refute an inference of recent f...
Defendant was convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001. During the trial, the court denied defend...
A witness called to testify is presumed to be of good character. Hence no proof of it is necessary. ...
Appellant who was convicted of committing a criminal abortion, moved for a new trial alleging as err...
The Supreme Court has held that a grand jury witness offered immunity is not entitled to a suppressi...