stating that the reopening of a case to admit a document four 19 hours after the jury had been deliberating would be prejudicial to the government because it 20 “would then have had no chance to comment on it, summation having been closed”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the reopening of a case to admit a document four 19 hours after the jury had been deliberating would be prejudicial to the government because it 20 “would then have had no chance to comment on it, summation having been closed”
- stating that the reopening of a case to admit a document four hours after the jury had been deliberating would be prejudicial to the government because it “would then have had no chance to comment on it, summation having been closed”
- holding "after an accused has once let the cat out of the bag by confessing, no matter what the inducement, he is never thereafter free of the psychological and practical disadvantages of having confessed. He can never get the cat back in the bag."
- holding that a “confession [obtained] under circumstances which preclude its use,” does not “perpetually disable[ ] the confessor from making a usable one after those conditions have been removed”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
would affirm the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals substantially for the reasons set forth below by Judge Clark in reversing the conviction of the Bayers, which, under a charge of conspiracy, carries with it a reversal as to Radovich. 156 F. 2d 964, 967-68 .