# United States v. Bayer

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 9, 1947 · 331 U.S. 532

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9420021

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES v. BAYER Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 9, 1947
- **Citations:** 331 U.S. 532; 67 S. Ct. 1394; 91 L. Ed. 1654; 1947 U.S. LEXIS 2158
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Rutledge
- **Judges:** Jackson, Frankfurter, Rutledge
- **Cited by:** 629 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9420021

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- 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"

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Rutledge
is of the view that the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals should be affirmed insofar as it relates to the respondent Radovich, for the reasons stated in that court’s opinion. 156 F. 2d 964, 968-70 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9420021. Public record. Not legal advice.