◆ SpookStack

Te TTT Te te Se {In the Watkins Case, the m tor 7 held that witnesses must " & given a fair epportunity to kouew whether they are within their Segal rights fo refusing to ansver questions; that Cathias tad been denied his eonstitutional right of doe process of 1a0; that the question ander taquiry at the time tatkins testified was stecure and that the system ef iaterrogation used by the Comittee @id not -doquately safeguard the right ef free apecch. In the Joncks Case, the Court ordered a new trial for a fabor Reader 48 New Mexico, convicted of lying when he signed a noz - Communist oath. Ite decision was based on the ruling that Jencks had the right to inspect the secret F.B.2. files, whic: had been denied to him. fhe decision was a §-2-} opinion, Five menbers of _ the Court, Warren, Black, Douglas, Frankfurter and Brennan who wrote the opinion, poled that the defendant had the right of fnspection of confidential files, witbout any ecreeniag of their relevancy, or possible danger to security, by the trial judge. Justicés Rarlan and Burton concurred in ordering a sew trial, but only on the ground that the trial gudge had wade a mistake in defining Communist Party membership to the jury. It is soteworthy that dustices Harlan and Burton insistéd that confidential information in security cases must be submitted for inspectios by the trial judge, for his decisic as to relevancy and security before being handed to the defense. {This bas been the custom in Federal Courts for a long time.) Justice Clark was the lone dissenter and his opposition was vigorouc. Criticism not only has come from laymen and jawyers but “rom Judges of courts throughout the country. tt 1s never consider. - good taste for gudges publicly to criticize the decisions of other courts, least of all, those of our highest Court. It is therefore significant to read the resolution offered by Chief Justice Norman ~ Arterburn of the Bupreme Court of [ndiana, at a conference of Chief Justices of the highest courts of the forty-eight states, which reads: ° "Be it resolved, that it is our opinion the Suprene court haj transgressed sound legal principles. {fn particular, it has usurped fact finding functions in weighing the evidence in the case= of Konigsberg ¥. State Bar of California and Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of Sev York. | | Woreover, the Suprene Court bas encroached upon the juris diction of the state courts in holding bar applicants in the atates of California and Sew Mexico may refuse to answer questions about their past connectiens, ~5-