Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company/Concurrence Harlan

by John Marshall Harlan II

United States Supreme Court

376 U.S. 240

Platt  v.  Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company

 Argued: Jan. 9, 1964. --- Decided: March 9, 1964

Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring.

I join the Court's opinion with the following brief comments.

First, for myself I wish to mak explicit what is indeed implicit in the Court's opinion, namely, that the Court of Appeals was entirely correct in holding that the District Court's speculation that the Government might not be able to obtain an impartial jury in the Minnesota District was wholly out of bounds.

Second, while the Court of Appeals' outright reversal of the District Court understandably reflects its view that the other factors making for a change of venue, when stripped of the impermissible 'impartial jury' consideration, are indeed strong, such action cannot well be regarded as other than a de novo determination of the change of venue motion on the part of the Court of Appeals. Such a course inescapably contravenes accepted principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

Notes