Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-24203House OversightOther

Justice Goldberg allegedly collaborated with Alan Dershowitz in 1963 to argue the death penalty’s unconstitutionality

The passage offers a historical anecdote linking a former Supreme Court Justice to a prominent legal scholar, but provides no concrete evidence, dates beyond the general 1963 timeframe, or actionable Alleged meeting between Justice Goldberg and Alan Dershowitz in summer 1963 Discussion of using the Eighth Amendment to challenge capital punishment Reference to a handwritten high‑school debate card

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017246
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage offers a historical anecdote linking a former Supreme Court Justice to a prominent legal scholar, but provides no concrete evidence, dates beyond the general 1963 timeframe, or actionable Alleged meeting between Justice Goldberg and Alan Dershowitz in summer 1963 Discussion of using the Eighth Amendment to challenge capital punishment Reference to a handwritten high‑school debate card

Tags

death-penaltylegal-advocacylegal-historyhistorical-narrativecivil-rightshouse-oversightsupreme-court

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
4.2.12 WC: 191694 As I previously mentioned, my initial assignment as Justice Goldberg’s law clerk was to write a memorandum on the possible unconstitutionality of the death penalty. Here is how [ find author] , in his book , describes the origins of this lifelong collaborative effort. [Justice Goldberg] called his law clerk Alan Dershowitz into his office and advanced the decidedly immodest idea of using the Constitution to end the death penalty in America. “The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment,” Goldberg told Dershowitz. “What could be more cruel than the deliberate decision by the state to take a human life?” Alan Dershowitz immediately understood the impudence of Goldberg’s proposal. It was Dershowitz’s very first day on the job and the young clerk, already brimming with energy and enthusiasm, was elated by the Justice’s proposed agenda. When Goldberg sat down with Dershowitz in the summer of 1963, not even the American Civil Liberties Union believed that capital punishment posed a potential violation of constitutional rights. Dershowitz made this point to Goldberg. “At the time the Eighth Amendment was enacted, the colonists were executing people all over the place. Certainly the framers of the Constitution did not regard the death penalty as unconstitutional.” “Therein lies the beauty of our Bill of Rights,” Goldberg said. “It’s an evolving document. It means something different today than it meant in 1792.” In Alan Dershowitz, Goldberg found a kindred spirit and a life story that was in many ways the New York parallel of his own Chicago childhood...Dershowitz had an aversion to capital punishment, which traced back to his childhood. Dershowitz argued against capital punishment as a member of his high school debating team. [I still have a handwritten card from my first high school debate in which I advocate the “abolision of C.P.” because “most murderers are products of invironment.”] In law school, he wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of Israel...arguing that the death penalty was inappropriate even for Adolf Eichmann. Goldberg’s choice of Dershowitz to write his capital punishment opinion was no coincidence. Goldberg passed on the issue during his first year on the bench in part because he did not feel that he had the right clerks. He inherited his first set of clerks from Felix Frankfurter. Though he had high regard for the retiring justice’s selections, he didn’t feel they were right for the job. They worked together through scholarship and advocacy against the death penalty for the remainder of Goldberg’s life. It is difficult to imagine that Goldberg could have found a more willing and able confederate than Alan Dershowitz. 159

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Alan Dershowitz defends representing Mike Tyson amid campus backlash

The passage only recounts public criticism and debate over Dershowitz's representation of Mike Tyson, without revealing new facts, financial transactions, or links to powerful officials. It offers lit Dershowitz faced letters and attacks for defending Tyson on appeal. Students threatened sexual harassment complaints over his classroom discussions. The controversy centers on the ethical debate of r

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Draft transcript excerpt mentions Jeffrey Epstein invoking the Fifth and a reference to Alan Dershowitz

The passage provides a vague, uncited reference to Epstein and Dershowitz refusing to answer questions in a hearing. It lacks concrete details—no dates, transactions, or specific allegations—making it Jeffrey Epstein allegedly took the Fifth Amendment during a court hearing. A question about Alan Dershowitz was raised, and he also invoked the Fifth. The excerpt is labeled as a rough draft and appe

1p
House OversightUnknown

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit The passage outlines a procedural battle over production of documents and metadata in a defamation case involving Alan Dershowitz. While it flags potential evidence that could expose communications or internal materials, it lacks concrete details about the content, dates, or parties beyond the litigants, limiting immediate investigative value. However, the mention of “control” and alleged refusal to produce metadata could merit follow‑up to determine what information is being withheld and whether it relates to broader controversies surrounding Dershowitz. Key insights: Plaintiffs allege Dershowitz is withholding documents and metadata under the claim of ‘control’.; The objection is framed as ‘word play’ and gamesmanship, suggesting possible intentional concealment.; Discovery objections focus on timeframe limits, implying plaintiffs seek records spanning an undefined period.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated The passage hints at a possible concealment of evidence in a high‑profile defamation dispute involving Alan Dershowitz, a prominent attorney, and references the infamous Giuffre allegations. While it names well‑known legal figures, it provides no concrete financial transactions, dates, or new factual revelations beyond already public claims, limiting its investigative utility. However, the suggestion that a court record may be sealed to hide potentially damaging testimony offers a moderate lead for further document‑review and freedom‑of‑information requests. Key insights: Dershowitz requests the court to declare portions of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit confidential.; He publicly denies the allegations on BBC Radio 4, framing them as a coordinated false‑story campaign.; Dershowitz threatens perjury prosecution against accusers and seeks disbarment of opposing counsel.

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Lesley Groff

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Lesley Groff <MIEll

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.