Criminal Law · MBE-tested
Thomas v. United States
386 U.S. 975·Supreme Court of the United States·1967
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. 1027.
Thomas v. United States.
Newton B. Schwartz for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[DISSENT — Mr. Justice Douglas,]
Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting.
I would grant this petition on the fourth question. It concerns the apparent practice of Internal Revenue agents in examining taxpayers and using the evidence obtained in criminal prosecutions when the taxpayers are given no warning as-to their rights, including the right to have an attorney present. This is not an in-custody case, but it is a coercive examination of a taxpayer at a critical preliminary hearing, so to speak, and the question presented apparently is a recurring one.