Legal Opinion

United States v. Durham

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided February 26, 1960No. Cr. A. 1107-59PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

The defendant moves for an opportunity to inspect the Probation Officer’s report of the presentence investigation. This motion is denied.

It is not the practice to permit the defendant or his counsel or any one else to inspect reports of presentence investigations. Such reports are treated as confidential documents. They are not public records. The reason is obvious. Such reports, in order to be helpful to the Court, must of necessity contain a considerable amount of information that may be obtained, on occasion, in confidence. So, too, the Probation Officer must feel…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Williams v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1949

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. United States v. Gary Woody, United States of America v. Blanchard L. SavantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
  2. Hancock Brothers, Inc. v. JonesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1968
  3. United States v. James W. LloydCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
  4. Buchea v. SullivanOregon Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Morgan v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1962

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API