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.
Hoffa v. United States; Parks v. United States; Campbell v. United States; and King v. United States, 1966 — 382 U.S. 1024 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Hoffa v. United States; Parks v. United States; Campbell v. United States; and King v. United States
382 U.S. 1024·Supreme Court of the United States·1966
Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion or these petitions.
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. 794.
No. 795.
No. 796.
No. 797.
Hoffa v. United States; Parks v. United States; Campbell v. United States; and King v. United States.
Morris A. Shenker and Joseph A. Fanelli for petitioner in No. 794. Jacques M. Schiffer for petitioner in No. 795.
Cecil D. Branstetter for petitioner in No. 796.
P. D. Maktos, John Maktos, Moses Krislov and Harold E. Brown for petitioner in No. 797.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Nathan Lewin and Robert S. Erdahl for the United States. Morris Levine for Criminal Courts Bar Association of Los Angeles, as amicus curiae, in support of the petition in No. 794.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of the Criminal Courts Bar Association of Los Angeles for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae in No. 794, granted. The petitions for writs of certiorari are also granted limited to the following question:
“Whether evidence obtained by the Government by means of deceptively placing a secret informer in the quarters and councils of a defendant during one criminal trial so violates the defendant’s Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights that suppression of such evidence is required in a subsequent trial of the same defendant on a different charge.”
The cases are consolidated and a total of three hours is allotted for oral argument.
Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion or these petitions.
Reported below: 349 F. 2d 20.