Needelman v. United States

PETITIONER: Needelman
RESPONDENT: United States
LOCATION: Federal Reformatory for Women in West Virginia

DOCKET NO.: 278
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1958-1962)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

CITATION: 362 US 600 (1960)
ARGUED: Apr 25, 1960 / Apr 26, 1960
DECIDED: May 16, 1960

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Needelman v. United States

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 25, 1960 in Needelman v. United States

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 26, 1960 in Needelman v. United States

Oscar H. Davis:

I came from the bench of the argument yesterday.

Justice Harlan asked if the record revealed how long the jury was out.

On page 405 of the original record on file with the clerk, it indicates the jury returned at 4:26 in the afternoon and returned with a verdict at 6:06.

So they were out about an hour and 40 minutes.

Some reference has been made to the fact that the trial judge before he submitted the substantive counts to the jury refer to the fact that it was a very slender case.

He did say that.

He said, “Off-hand, I think this is a very slender case.”

After the verdict was returned, the motion for a new trial was made as to all 15 counts.

He granted it as to five, but did not grant it as to the 10, which still remain in the case.

The issue of the sufficiency of the evidence was brought up to the Court of Appeals and was thoroughly reviewed there as the opinion reveals.

It has not been brought to the Court.

I would also say on the point that the full record contains somewhat more evidence than the printed record here that is, there is testimony of both witnesses for the prosecution and witnesses for the defense whose testimony is not included in the printed transcript, but it is included in the original transcript on file with the clerk.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter asked about the catch line with respect to the denial of the motion for production of notes on page 93 of the record.

I have ascertained from the clerk that that catch line which is in the capitals on page 93 was inserted by the clerk of this Court in preparing the record for printing for the convenience of the Court.

And it is done so that an index can be made up from the beginning for the convenience of the Court.

The original record, as I said yesterday, contains just what we have here and has no indication of any deletions or elisions.

Potter Stewart:

The motion itself does not appear in the record.

Oscar H. Davis:

The motion itself does not appear at all.

And I also referred yesterday to the case report which was delivered to defense counsel at -- at his request.

Earl Warren:

Mr. Davis --

Oscar H. Davis:

And --

Earl Warren:

-- and also, it does not appear in the full record.

Oscar H. Davis:

It does not appear anywhere.

Earl Warren:

Yes.

I think it was not taken down by the --

Yes.

Oscar H. Davis:

-- by the stenographer at the trial.

With respect to the case report, a copy of which is in the original record here in file.

I have the agent's own copy.

This is a carbon copy of the one on file with the -- with the Court.