Goldman v. United States
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Of 70 flagged citations, 65 citing opinions were read. The text of 5 citing opinions could not be assessed, so the review remains open.
70 later cases cite Goldman v. United States; 70 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; 65 of them have been read, and the text of 5 citing opinions could not be retrieved, so those remain unread. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Goldman v. United States?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Overruled in part
-
The Supreme Court replaced Goldman's rule permitting a trial judge to deny inspection of unused witness notes with a right to production and defense inspection of government witness reports concerning their testimony.
Jencks v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
This Court held in Goldman v. United States, 316 U. S. 129, 132, that the trial judge had discretion to deny inspection when the witness “. . . does not use his notes or memoranda [relating to his testimony] in court . . . We now hold that the petitioner was entitled to an order directing the Government to produce for inspection all reports of Matusow and Ford in its possession, written and, when orally made, as recorded by the F. B. I., touching the events and activities as to which they testified at the trial.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court displaced Goldman's no-trespass Fourth Amendment rule by holding that electronic surveillance can be a search without physical intrusion.
Katz v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
We conclude that the underpinnings of Olmstead and Goldman have been so eroded by our subsequent decisions that the “trespass” doctrine there enunciated can no longer be regarded as controlling. The Government’s activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner’s words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a “search and seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The fact that the electronic device employed to achieve that end did not happen to penetrate the wall of the booth can have no constitutional significance.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Goldman v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace