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.
Rosenberg v. United States, 1958 — 358 U.S. 904 · caselaw · US
General
Rosenberg v. United States
358 U.S. 904·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. 451.
Rosenberg v. United States.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted limited to question I presented by the petition for the writ which reads as follows:
Bernard Tompkins for petitioner. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Anderson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States.
“I. Is the rule of this Court in Jencks v. United States, 1957, 353 U. S. 657, a rule of mere procedure, or does it involve a defendant’s constitutional rights? May a clear violation of this rule be harmless error ? May the conceded error of a trial court in withholding from defense counsel prior statements of principal Government witnesses be excused because a Circuit Court finds that the defense was not hampered in cross-examination of those witnesses? Is it proper for a Circuit Court to determine what use defense counsel might have made of statements erroneously withheld?”