NCRRC Comment
 The dictum, " THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY IN A SENTENCING JUDGE RELYING ON OUT-OF-COURT INFORMATION IN DETERMINING AN APPROPRIATE SENTENCE." It in no way authorizes the judge to change the trial's indictment, and to sentence for different, untried charges! Appellate grievously erred in thus construing the dictum and denying the Rosenbergs' appeal, about "sentencing without trial."  THAT ERROR NEGATES THE TRIAL!

Letter from NCRRC to President Clinton

The Justice Dept's John Keeney, pertinent parts of whose letter [above] is encircled, seems not to have noticed the grievous error of the Appellate Court. IT IS ONE THING, almost legitimate, FOR THE SUPREME COURT 'DICTUM' TO  PERMIT A SENTENCING-JUDGE TO USE OUT-OF-COURT INFORMATION IN DETERMINING AN APPROPRIATE SENTENCE, AFTER TRIAL AND CONVICTION. It is another matter, ABSOLUTELY IMPERMISSIBLE, for a judge to use "out-of-court" BEFORE trial and conviction, or to change and negate a trial's charges, indictment, and trial record. Such mis-use of out-of-court COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTENDED BY THE 'DICTUM,' since that would have overturned our judicial system and safeguards.*

Clearly, Appellate mis-construed the dictum in applying it to, and denying, the Rosenberg appeal about sentencing  without trial! The dictum was intended to give a judge a reasonable amount of leeway in sentencing, not to violate all standards of fair trial; not to ignore the indictment and to concoct new, untried charges, and sentence for the untried, based on out-of-court information!

Appellate's error in the early 1950s can be attributed to the McCarthyite hysteria and paranoia of that period. That cannot explain  the Department's oversight, Dec. 1997!

The solution, dear Mr. President: BEFORE YOU LEAVE OFFICE, either a full hearing on the Rosenberg case, or a FULL PARDON FOR JULIUS AND ETHEL ROSENBERG, AND FOR STILL-LIVING CO-DEFENDANT MORTON SOBELL.

Most Respectfully,

Aaron Katz, Director, NCRRC

* The TRIAL RECORD shows Judge Kaufman making it clear to jurors that the charge against defendants is only for having "conspired," and not for passing any classified material. 7 days after the jury convicted with that understanding, Kaufman said "DEATH, for passing the most highly-classified material!"  A judicial betrayal of trial, and jury!