John Marshall Harlan II,
Mesarosh v. United States — Dissent
“ 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. ”
