SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Paul Wendt (NC))
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:18:26 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (82 lines)
===================== HES POSTING ===================== 
 
This news from the courtroom concerns the particular case of Harry Dexter 
White and a general issue between historians and the law.  
 
Recall, from our "Censorship" thread: 
4 Nov 1997, Robert Leeson cited William Manchester: 
> 
> 1. The Executive Director of the IMF (Harry Dexter White) and       
> Roosevelt's special assistant (Lauchlin Currie) were accused of 
> treachery.                                                              
           
4 Nov, Brad DeLong replied regarding Harry White, one of his heroes. 
 
11 Nov, Roger Sandilands reported (posted by Paul Wendt) 
> that Stanley Fischer has asked a historian at the IMF to look into the 
> McCarthy episode in relation to White and Currie. 
 
                                        ----Paul Wendt, Asst.Editor 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
NCC Washington Update, vol. 3, #49, December 18, 1997 
   by Page Putnam Miller, Director of the National Coordinating 
      Committee for the Promotion of History <[log in to unmask]> 
 
Appeals Court Rules on Opening of Grand Jury Records of Historical Value 
 
On December 15 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 
in New York City ruled in the case of Bruce Craig v. United States of 
America (Case No. 96-6264).  While the panel of Judges Kearse, Calabresi, 
and Munson denied Bruce Craig access to the specific records that he 
sought, the Court made clear that historical interests are appropriate 
grounds for the release of grand jury material.  The opinion states that 
"It is, therefore, entirely conceivable that in some situations historical 
or public interest alone could justify the release of grand jury 
information."  The Appeals Court decided, however, that in this particular 
case disclosure "would involve some witnesses who are still alive" and 
that "the public interest and other factors involved in the petitioner's 
case did not justify disclosure."  
 
Craig, a PhD student at American University, filed a petition in 1996, 
that was denied by the lower court.  His petition called for the releasing 
of a historically significant 79-page transcript in the grand jury records 
pertaining to a McCarthy era espionage investigation of Harry Dexter 
White, a high-ranking Treasury Department official accused of being a 
Communist spy.  The American Historical Association, the Organization of 
American Historians, the National Council on Public History, and the 
Society of American Archivists filed an amici brief in support of Craig's 
petition.  The amici brief stressed the public's compelling interest in 
knowing its own history, in observing the operation of the criminal 
justice system, and in establishing a precedent in which the public's 
interest in historic grand jury records can justify the unsealing those 
records. 
 
This opinion breaks new ground in firmly establishing historical interests 
as grounds for seeking access to grand jury records. And the opinion goes 
a step further in establishing some guidance for determining the "special 
circumstances" when sensitive grand jury records should be unsealed for 
historical reasons.  The opinion outlines eight factors for courts to use 
in future deliberations.  These include exploration of the following 
issues:  identity of the party seeking disclosure, whether the defendant 
to the grand jury proceedings or the government opposes the disclosure, 
why the disclosure is being sought, the status of the principals in the 
grand jury proceedings and their families, the extent to which the desired 
material -- either permissibly or impermissibly -- has been previously 
made public, whether witnesses to the grand jury proceedings who might be 
affected by disclosure are still alive, and the additional need for 
maintaining secrecy in the particular case in question.  In elaborating on 
this guidance, the opinion stated: "the passage of time erodes many of the 
justifications for continued secrecy."  
 
* * * * * * * * * ** *  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
NCC invites you to redistribute the NCC Washington Updates. 
A complete backfile of these reports is maintained by H-Net. 
See World Wide Web: http://h-net.msu.edu/~ncc/ 
* * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask] 
 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2