Summary

William J. Brennan, Jr. Campbell v. United States (365 U.S. 85…

It is the responsibility of counsel for defendants, as has been elucidated, to pursue ascertainment of the correctness of the Government's claim that documents which are demandable for production under the Jencks Act are no longer in existence, and for no reprehensible reason chargeable to the Government. That is an issue like any other issue of appropriate evidentiary demand. It is not for the court to question that the foundation for production-here, the existence of a document-is wanting, if counsel for defendants do not question the Government's explanation for non-production.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. Campbell v. United States (365 U.S. 85…

Defendants were represented by two competent lawyers who were alert to protect their clients' interest through all available trial procedures and tactics. It surely is not the duty of a district judge to investigate a response by one who is an officer of the court as well as of the United States on the assumption that he has intentionally or irresponsibly violated his responsibility to the court and the Government in conducting the Government's case in a manner consistent with basic legal ethics and professional care.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. Campbell v. United States (365 U.S. 85…

The inquiry was simply a proceeding necessary to aid the judge to discharge the responsibility laid upon him to enforce the statute. The function of prosecution and defense at the inquiry was not so much a function of their adversary positions in the trial proper, as it was a function of their duty to come forward with relevant evidence which might assist the judge in the making of his determination. These considerations standing alone suggest that the emphasis on the petitioners' burden to produce the evidence was misplaced. The statute says nothing of burdens of producing evidence.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature