Remington v. United States

1952-03-24

Headline: Denial of review leaves perjury indictment intact despite claims of prosecutorial misconduct tied to a foreman’s business relationship with a key witness.

Holding: The Court denied review of the defendant’s claims about prosecutorial misconduct related to a grand-jury foreman’s business ties and withheld evidence, leaving the indictment and conviction undisturbed.

Real World Impact:

Leaves the perjury indictment and conviction in place without Supreme Court review.
Raises concern about undisclosed foreman-witness business ties in grand juries.
Highlights alleged prosecutorial withholding of collaboration-related evidence from defense.

Topics: prosecutorial misconduct, grand jury fairness, perjury case, evidence disclosure

Summary

Background

A man convicted of perjury sought Supreme Court review after a federal appeals court reversed his conviction but refused to dismiss the underlying indictment. He says the grand jury that charged him was compromised because the grand-jury foreman was financially and literarily partnered with the government’s chief witness in a book venture that depended on the indictment. He also says the U.S. Attorney withheld information about that partnership from his lawyers.

Reasoning

The central question presented was whether those alleged relationships and withheld facts were so unfair that the indictment should be dismissed. The Supreme Court’s majority declined to grant review of the case, so it did not decide the merits of those claims. A dissenting Justice said the allegations approach the kind of prosecutorial practices this Court has long called due process violations and argued the Court should consider the issue.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to hear the case, the indictment and the related conviction remain legally unresolved at the national level. The decision leaves in place the appeals-court result and does not settle whether a foreman’s business ties or withheld collaboration evidence automatically require dismissal. The denial is not a final judgment on the fairness questions and could be taken up again under different circumstances.

Dissents or concurrances

One Justice, joined by another, wrote a dissent explaining that the alleged conduct—foreman collaboration and suppression of evidence—warranted Supreme Court review as a potential due process violation.