Summary

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Fong Foo v. United States — Dissent

The court then excused the jury and after excoriating the Assistant called the jury back into session and directed the verdict of acquittal.
It is fundamental in our criminal jurisprudence that the public has a right to have a person who stands legally indirected by a grand jury publicly tried on the charge. No judge has the power before hearing the testimony proffered by the Government or at least canvassing the same to enter a judgment of acquittal and thus frustrate the Government in the performance of its duty to prosecute those who violate its law.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Fong Foo v. United States — Dissent

It was during the latter's testimony-entirely explanatory-that the court called a recess for the stated purpose of requiring the United States Attorney to 'consider whether the public interest is served by a further prosecution of this case.' Upon the vigorous insistence of the United States Attorney himself, the trial was resumed and the Government called its third and fourth witnesses. The fourth witness was the first to testify as to the fraud upon the Government which related to a deliberate scheme to conceal from government inspectors defects in the devices.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature