◆ SpookStack

oi cc her a . . * ‘Two alternatives seem to he Nose judgem to determine, tn ; 6Tt seems unlikely that thé oper vote. Govefittrent-® It [ease of controversy; r- pr ald do la can leave the trial of. ali tlons of the reports requested case, which the Court first have a bearing on the case, ‘Material Raving ne. relstion whatever to the case—unevalu- jated date which might gravely damage innocent persons— could thus be eliminated. - _, No doubt this problem can; ‘be worked. out, satisfactorily, | Apierican -clvilians abroad to the country In whicH the eriine+ -has been committed. Or it tan forbid military men to take their families along when, they are assigned to foreign’: duty. Either would be a dras. ' unclated in the McNabb fe. clsisn gore than 16 fears dye, will be altered. ‘But sa: : more will be needed te Indl cate to law-enforcement effi cers precisely how they should proceed when they must deal with suspects against whom he tic measure, In one case the effect would be to deny civil-— ian camp-followers the consti- tutional protection which the Court is trying to give therh. he other would greatly com- Plicate the problem of main- taining. military forces’: in - other lands, and thus might weaken our defenses. - . ~. The question here is whether & sound principle has been ‘stretched to the point of pro. ducing unsound consequences. | - Only future” experience wil] ‘provide the angyer. : ~, THE TWO CASES which have especially jolted Jaw-en- forcement agencies are Jencks v. United States, in which the Court ordered release of cer- tain FBI reports, and the re.‘ versal of Andrew R. Mallory’s _conviction of rape. Excitement éver the Jencks case flared In ‘part because of exaggerated reports ax te what the "Court not call for any wholesale opening of FBY files but only the release of reports made to the FBI by witnesses who had testified in the case, -— ! had ordered. Actually ey pelting logic, that. Jencks’ at- torney was entitled to see re- ports made by Harvey Matu- sow and J. W. Ford in order to prepare a proper. defense. ; ,The Government should make ‘available ta the defense all the written and FBI-recorded re- ports ftom those two witness. ' Ves “touching the events and ac- tivities as to which they testi: fied at the trial.” . -! Justice Brennan's majority opinion definitely frowned upon the practice of having the judge in the case examine requested FBI papers te de- termine whether they are rele- vant. What the Court seemed to overlook fs that someone must examine the FBI files in the first instance to-determine | which confidential reports do | “touch the event¢ and activi-' tes” about which FBI inform, | ‘ers have testified, ° . «,-.. 7. Defense counsel could ‘not | reasonably be given acoess to: all the data in every report! - which an informer might: have made. So the Justice: Department and various members of Congress are. eokingtepisiation jo aulpor- | The Cofrt said, with 2 Dut. the present confusion among the lower courts as to what is required might have been avoided if t Supreme - Court had spelled out its rub’ ing with greater preclaeness, «. has brought the tidividual’s right not to be # witness against himself into sharp col- Hslon with routine police prac- | “AS FOR'the Mallory ease, it’ tices. Mallory was taken to a station on suspicion, subjected to a lie-detector test and inten. sively questioned until he con. | fessed. There was no evidence of coercion, but a unanimous Court ruled. that he should first have been taken before a magistrate and informed of his right to have counsel and to refrain from saying any- thing that could be used» Es of Columbia police against him. : f As in the Smith and Covert F cases, the safeguard which the » Court has laid down seems un- Z exceptionable in principle. In application, it gives, rise te grave probiems, al ‘In a recent unsolved mur- der, the District police say, they have questioned a thou- sand or more persons, Some were held several hours while thelr stories were checked, Obviously they could not have been taken before a magistrate sence of any concrete evi- dence. That would amount to persons should confess to the crime, his prosecution would seem to be clouded unless the police could find evidence enough to convict him without the confession. - CONSTITUTIONAL rights should not be impaired, of course, because théy make po- lice work more diffi ‘no rights sre absolute, The ‘great work of the Court lies ‘in maintaining a reasonable RAR OP TS SO: 3 and ordered held in the ab false arrest. Yet if one of these- i { t ' Prem cult. But’ [balance bétween individuals ‘rights and the interests and ef society as 57 6. + re susbstantle! evidence has been, found, ; 4g After‘a survey of the Court's opinions over many decades, Leo Pfeffer concluded in his | recent volure, “The Liberties (Of an American,” that it fas | “tn large measure fulfilled its Tesponsibilities as guardian of | the Bill of Rights.” That com- »ment is even more pertinent | today than it was a few months ago, : | The Court's recent exuber- ance in this sphere may re ‘quire some adjustments, but it has shown a healthy respect fdr the basle freedoms. T ‘ylars ahead will give am opportunity for furthér worg- of the rdugh ground whi “has been newly plowed, *