◆ SpookStack

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No. 10.—Octoser Term, 1942. Mitchell Clifton Gade on, John Ed- ward Simonds, Earl Hubbard, Fel- ton MooreSWoodw, rd, Marion Luther] On Writ of Certiorari to Ellis, Robert Led Ballew, Jobn David| the United States Cir- (’Queen, Robert Lee “Rhodes, Peti-f euit Court of Appeals tioners, for the Sixth Circuit. vs. The United States of America, (Mareh 1, 1943.] Mr. Justice Frankrurter delivered the opinion of the Court. The petitioners were convicted, in the District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, of conspiring to damage property owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority, a corporation in which the United States is a stockholder, in violation of §§35(C) and 37 of the Criminal Code as amended (18 U.S. ©. §§ 82, 88). The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the con- victions, 124 F. 2d 58, and we brought the case here because it presented serious questions in the administration of federal crim- inal justice, 316 U.S. 651. The questions are similar to those de- cided this day in No. 25, McNabb v. United States. The two cases were argued at the same time and, as will appear from a short summary of a long record, are’ governed by the same considera- tions. In July 1939, the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers struck against the Tennessee Copper Company’s mines EO 1 As in the McNabb case, there are uo specific findings hera as to the cir- cumstancea in which the incriminating statements in controveray were admitted against the petitioners, When these statements (excepting the confessions of three petitioners) were offered in evidence, the petitionera objected, and the trial court held a hearing in the absence of the jury to determine whether the statements were ‘‘voluntary’’. At the conclusion of this preliminary exam- ination, the court overruled objections to the admissibility of these state- ments. The jury was recalled and the same testimony was repeated. The evidence relating to the confessiona of three of the petitioners was, by stipulation, heard only once and in the presence of the jury. Referring te all this evidence as ‘‘certain parts of the proof’’, t oy thus charged s34pes ya | ee. eo ee te ON —_