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.
Dennis et al. v. United States, 1965 — 382 U.S. 915 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
Dennis et al. v. United States
382 U.S. 915·Supreme Court of the United States·1965
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. 502.
Dennis et al. v. United States.
Nathan Witt, George J. Francis and Telford Taylor for petitioners.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney Yeagley and George B. Searls for the United States.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 1, 2, and 3 presented by the petition, which read as follows:
“1. Whether the indictment states the offense of conspiracy to defraud the United States;
“2. Whether, in the comparative light of American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, and United States v. Archie Browm, 381 U. S. 437, Section 9 (h) of the Taft-Hartley Act is constitutional;
“3. Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioners’ motions for the production, to the'defense or the Court, of grand jury testimony of prosecution witnesses.”
Gerhard P. Van Arkel, Charles F. Brannan, John F. O’Donnell, Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Eugene Cotton, Melvin L. Wulf, Jacob Sheinkman, Joseph M. Jacobs and John Ligtenberg for the American Civil Liberties Union et al., in support of the petition.