Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 1958 — 358 U.S. 917 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States
358 U.S. 917·Supreme Court of the United States·1958
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 489.
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States.
Leland Hazard, Cyrus V. Anderson and James B. Henry, Jr. for petitioner.
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen and Daniel M. Friedman for the United States.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted limited to question 1 presented by the petition for the writ which reads as follows:
“1. In the trial of a federal criminal action, when the principal witness for the prosecution stated that he had testified three times before the indicting grand jury upon matters covered by his testimony at the trial, was it reversible error for the trial judge upon motion duly made to deny to the defendants, for use in cross examination, inspection of the transcripts of the grand jury testimony of that witness?”