Mesarosh v. United States/Dissent Harlan

Mr. Justice HARLAN, with whom Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER and Mr. Justice BURTON join, dissenting.

When the Court's order denying the Government's motion to remand, and granting the petitioners a new trial, was announced by THE CHIEF JUSTICE on October 10, Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, Mr. Justice BURTON and I dissented. We reserved our right to file an opinion stating our reasons for thinking that the Government's motion should have been granted. This is that opinion.

On 670, 671, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2385, 371, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2385, 371, by conspiring to advocate the overthrow of the United States Government by force and violence. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed by a divided vote. This Court granted certiorari.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, Mr. Justice BURTON, and Mr. Justice HARLAN dissent believing the Government's motion to remand should be granted, and reserve the right to file an opinion.

On September 27, 1956, about two weeks before the case was scheduled for argument, the Solicitor General filed a motion asking us to remand the case to the District Court for a hearing as to the truthfulness and credibility of one Mazzei, a government informant and witness at the trial. The occasion for this motion was that the Solicitor General's office, some ten days before, had come into possession of information which led it seriously to doubt the correctness of certain testimony given by Mazzei in various independent proceedings, all but one of which occurred after the trial, as to his relations with Communists and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In its motion papers the Government stated that while it still believed that Mazzei's testimony at the trial had been 'entirely truthful and credible,' his post-trial testimony in these other proceedings was such as to 'lead us to suggest that the issue of his truthfulness at the trial of these petitioners should now be determined by the District Court after a hearing.' Petitioners' answer to this motion was that, while they considered themselves entitled to a judgment of acquittal or a new trial on the basis of the Government's disclosures, disposition of the Government's motion should nevertheless await this Court's decision on the issues brought here by the writ of certiorari.

On October 8, the Court directed that the Government's motion be heard orally at the threshold of the main case. My brother FRANKFURTER, who felt that the motion should have been granted forthwith, filed a dissenting memorandum. When the matter was heard by the Court on October 10, the positions taken by the Government and the defense were as follows: The Government was not yet prepared to say that Mazzei had committed perjury either at the trial or in any of the collateral proceedings. Conceivably, the Solicitor General thought, it might turn out that Mazzei was a psychiatric case. The Solicitor General pointed out that the petitioners had not previously moved for a new trial on the grounds relied upon in the Government's motion, although much of the later information as to Mazzei was known to them at the time of their motion for reargument in the Court of Appeals. Even so, the Solicitor General felt that in the broader interests of justice it was his duty to pursue the matter as soon as it came to his knowledge that a cloud was cast upon Mazzei's truthfulness or credibility. If he had been satisfied that Mazzei was a perjurer, the Solicitor General stated, he would have recommended that this Court reverse the convictions of two of the petitioners (Careathers and Dolsen). Since he was not so satisfied, he thought the proper procedure was to remand the case to the District Court for full exploration of the truthfulness and credibility of this witness. As to the other three petitioners, the Solicitor General regarded Mazzei's trial testimony of so little importance that the trial court, even if it found Mazzei was a perjurer, would have to review the entire case against them before ordering a new trial. Petitioners' position was that if this Court was unwilling to hear the main case on the merits, it should, without more, deny the Government's motion and reverse the convictions with directions for acquittal or at least a new trial. At the conclusion of the oral argument on the motion to remand, the Court recessed to consider the matter, following which its decision denying the Government's motion was announced from the bench.

We are in full agreement that the Court properly refused to pass on the merits of the case until this cloud upon the integrity of the convictions had been dissolved. Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U.S. 115, 76 S.Ct. 663. What we object to is that this Court itself should have undertaken to deal with the subtle and complicated issues presented by the Government's motion instead of sending the case back to the District Court for the determination of these issues after a full investigation. It is fitting that we state our reasons for this view.

1. We believe that the reversal of these convictions represents an unprecedented and dangerous departure from sound principles of judicial administration. The Court has overturned the results of a complex, protracted, and expensive trial before any investigation has been made of the suspicions which the Solicitor General brought to the attention of the Court promptly after the facts giving rise to them came to his notice. We find the Court's justification of its summary action unconvincing.

The basic justification given is that 'either this Court or the District Court should accept the statements of the Solicitor General as indicating the unreliability of this Government witness.' In effect, the Court has treated the case as if the Solicitor General had conceded the untrustworthiness of Mazzei's testimony at the trial. To us this reflects a misunderstanding of the Solicitor General's position. As to Mazzei's trial testimony, the Solicitor General-whose forthrightness and candor no one could doubt, and whose conduct in this situation has been commended by this Court-represented that the Government did not consider it yet had sufficient basis for regarding such testimony as untruthful. As to Mazzei's testimony in collateral proceedings, the Solicitor General, while stating his personal belief that some of it was untruthful, represented that he could not responsibly say whether such testimony involved perjury rather than psychopathic imbalance, and, if the latter, when that condition first arose or whether it was of such a character as to affect Mazzei's competency as a witness. In short, we think it abundantly clear that the Solicitor General conceded no more than that the situation was one that called for a thorough investigation.

We also observe that the Court finds that 'no other conclusion is possible' than that 'Mazzei's credibility has been wholly discredited,' and that some parts of his post-trial testimony have been 'positively established as untrue.' We do not see how these conclusions can be reached in the face of the Government's representation that it still believes Mazzei's trial testimony to have been 'entirely truthful and credible,' and without the production of any evidence, or the examination and cross-examination of Mazzei and those who contradicted him, as to the post-trial episodes which have been called in question. Nor can we agree with the manner in which the Court has dealt with the Solicitor General's contentions as to petitioners Mesarosh, Albertson and Weissman. The Court simply says that Mazzei's testimony against Careathers and Dolsen was of such a character that, having been admitted against all defendants, it tainted the whole trial. But we cannot understand how this can be said short of a painstaking appraisal of the entire record which the Court acknowledges it has not read. The Court was quite right not to read the record, for in our view this was not the business of this Court, but that of the District Court; but by the same token, we think, the decision as to whether a new trial was justified was also, in the first instance, the business of the District Court.

In the Communist Party case, supra, where there were undenied charges of perjury, we did not undertake to resolve those charges here, but instead sent the case back to the Board for exploration. We think a similar course should have been followed in this case. The Court suggests that the situation presented here differs from that in the Communist Party case, in that there the Board was the trier of the facts, whereas here it was for the jury, not the court, to weigh the truthfulness and credibility of Mazzei's trial testimony. This, however, overlooks the fact that as a preliminary to a new trial it must first be determined whether any of Mazzei's collateral testimony, now drawn in question, so reflects upon the truthfulness or credibility of his trial testimony as to warrant submission of the case to a new jury. That preliminary determination has always been recognized as the function of the trial court. United States v. Johnson, 327 U.S. 106, 66 S.Ct. 464, 90 L.Ed. 562; United States v. Troche, 2 Cir., 213 F.2d 401; United States v. Rutkin, 3 Cir., 208 F.2d 647; Gordon v. United States, 6 Cir., 178 F.2d 896, certiorari denied, 339 U.S. 935, 70 S.Ct. 664, 94 L.Ed. 1353.

Finally, the Court suggests that a different result might have been required if it were dealing with a defense motion for a new trial. However, we fail to see why the Government's motion, which was prompted by a desire to ascertain the true facts in all their ramifications, and which is aimed at the possibility of a new trial, calls for a different result or procedure than a defense motion for a new trial based on similar suspicions.

2. The District Court was the proper forum for the kind of investigation which should have been conducted here. This Court, and for that matter the Courts of Appeals, are ill-equipped for such a task. We need say no more than that appellate courts have no facilities for the examination of witnesses; nor in the nature of things can they have that intimate knowledge of the evidence and 'feel' of the trial scene, which are so essential to sound judgment upon matters of such complexity and subtlety as those involved here, and which are possessed by the trial court alone.

3. Certainly there is no room for doubting the Solicitor General's good faith in this matter, or for supposing that the conduct of the further proceedings below would fall short of the highest standards of criminal justice. We have the Solicitor General's assurance that all of the Government's information bearing upon Mazzei's truthfulness and credibility would be made available to the defense, subject to appropriate safeguards. As to the end result, the Solicitor General stated that in his view the trial court would have to acquit petitioners Careathers and Dolsen if it found that Mazzei had perjured himself at the trial or had then been incompetent to testify, and as to the other petitioners might have to order a new trial. We need not consider at this time whether the Solicitor General's statement exhausts all of the factors that might require a new trial. Suffice it to say that we regard the Solicitor General's approach to this difficult situation as unexceptionable; and it is hardly to be assumed that the District Court would not do its full duty or would fall into error. We need only add that had the Government's motion been granted this Court would no doubt have accompanied its remand with appropriate instructions to guide the District Court in coping with this complicated problem. And surely the fact that this case has been long-drawn-out does not justify short-circuiting normal and orderly judicial procedures. The procedure adopted in United States v. Flynn, D.C., 130 F.Supp. 412; D.C., 131 F.Supp. 742, commends itself to us as a proper means of dealing with problems such as those raised by the Solicitor General's motion. We do not, of course, even remotely imply that we give any tolerance to the notion that a criminal conviction found to be infected by tainted testimony should be allowed to stand. We do say that ascertainment of where the truth lies here requires the kind of probing that is beyond the facilities and practices of this Court.

For the foregoing reasons we dissent. We think that the Government's motion to remand should have been granted.