Arthur King Wilson v. United States

Counsel urge a rehearing, and a recall of our mandate herein dated March 7, 1958, in order to allow such a rehearing. Three cases are cited in support of this position: United States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co., 1957, 355 U.S. 233 , 78 S.Ct. 245 , 2 L.Ed.2d 234 ; Lawn v. United States, 1958, 355 U.S. 339 , 78 S.Ct. 311 , 2 L.Ed.2d 321 ; and Mesarosh v. United States, 1956, 352 U.S. 1 , 77 S.Ct. 1 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1 .

United States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co., supra, was a case where defendant was convicted by a jury. The issue remanded had to do with a preliminary question relating to the admissibility of evidence and did not relate to an issue submitted to a jury. Obviously, had it so related, no partial remand to the District Court would have been possible. But in Shot-well, the District Court Judge was authorized to take evidence upon the issue of admissibility of other evidence introduced at the previous trial to make appropriate new findings of fact on that issue, and a new final judgment on that issue.

In Lawn v. United States, supra, it is true the minority, speaking through Mr. Justice Harlan, thought the issue of whether “untainted” duplicates of the “tainted” check and stub were in the…