The New York Times The New York Times Washington   

Powered by: FindLaw

Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
SCALES v. U.S. , 360 U.S. 924 (1959)

U.S. Supreme Court

SCALES v. U.S. , 360 U.S. 924 (1959)

360 U.S. 924

Junius Irving SCALES, petitioner,
No. 488.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 29, 1959

Mr. Telford Taylor (Mr. McNeill Smith, on the brief), for petitioner.

Mr. John F. Davis (Solicitor General Rankin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Messrs. Kevin T. Maroney and Philip R. Monahan, on the brief), for the United States.

It is ordered that this case be set for reargument at the 1959 Term to be heard on Thursday, November 19, 1959. Counsel are requested to address themselves to the following questions among others:

Two hours are allotted to each side for oral argument.

Mr. Justice CLARK:

There are some 13 indictments now pending in the courts awaiting our disposition of this case, and one being held here on petition for certiorari. 1 Involved is the validity of the clause in the Smith Act having to do with membership in the Communist Party.

The case first came here over three years ago. Certiorari was originally granted on March 26, 1956, 350 U.S. 992 . After oral argument, the case was restored tothe docket and ordered to be reargued, 353 U.S. 979 . Prior to reargument, the Solicitor General filed a memorandum suggesting remand for a new trial under our intervening ruling in Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 . This was done, 355 U.S. 1 d 19. After affirmance of a second conviction, we again granted certiorari, 358 U.S. 917 , and on April 29, 1959, heard oral argument for the second time.

The Court poses some questions ostensibly for the guidance of counsel at the third argument. None involves the 'Jencks question,' so there must be no doubt in the Court's mind on that issue. In fact all of the questions posed have been fairly covered by the two arguments already made by capable counsel. All the reargument [360 U.S. 924 , 926]   does is cause inordinate delay. The case is as ready for disposition now as it will ever be, and we should not adjourn until it is handed down.

Much has been said of late of the law's delay, and criticism has been heaped on the courts for it. This case affords a likely Exhibit A. It looks as if Scales' case, like Jarndyce v. Jarndyce,2 will go on forever, only for the petitioner to reach his remedy, as did Richard Carstone there, through disposition by the Lord.


[ Footnote 1 ] Noto v. United States, No. 564 Misc., this Term.

[ Footnote 2 ] Bleak House, Charles Dickens.

Copyright © 2003 FindLaw