United States v. Edgerton
| Decision Date | 21 April 1897 |
| Docket Number | 227-230. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. EDGERTON (four cases). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
P. H Leslie, U.S. Atty., and Geo. F. Shelton, Asst. U.S. Atty.
Toole & Wallace, John B. Clayberg, and N.W. McConnell, for defendant.
The questions for decision arise upon motions to quash four several indictments against the defendant, Erastus D Edgerton, and upon pleas in abatement to said indictments. The motions and pleas are upon the same grounds, except that it is alleged as a ground of separate plea that said defendant was required by a subpoena to appear before the grand jury as a witness, and that he did appear in obedience to such subpoena, and was sworn and examined and required to testify to matters and things relating to and material to the charge made in the indictment against him, and this without being informed or having knowledge that the grand jury had under consideration any matter involving a criminal charge against him. The grounds upon which it is sought by both motions and pleas to have the indictments quashed are that one S. R. Flynn was allowed to testify as an expert before the grand jury, without being first examined as to his qualifications as an expert; that said Flynn was permitted to remain in the grand jury room while other witnesses were being examined in connection with the charge against the defendant, and propounded questions to such witnesses; that the grand jury were not selected according to law; and that as to a portion of such jury, those comprising it were not possessed of the qualifications required by law; and that the foreman of the grand jury and at least 11 other members thereof, who found and returned the indictments against the defendants, were in such a hostile and vindictive state of mind towards him as prevented them from acting impartially; and it is alleged in the pleas that the defendant was prejudiced in his rights by the several matters complained of. The pleas are supported by the affidavits of the defendant as to the facts upon which they rely. I shall consider but two questions in the case, inasmuch as these will dispose of the demurrers and motions, and are questions of universal application. These questions relate to the presence and conduct of the expert Flynn in the grand jury room, and to the examination of the defendant, Edgerton, as a witness against himself, under compulsions of a subpoena.
It is not necessary to inquire how far the laws of the states apply in criminal proceedings in the courts of the United States under section 721 of the Revised Statutes. It is beyond question that no person, other than a witness undergoing examination, and the attorney for the government, can be present during the sessions of the grand jury. The rule is inherent in the grand jury system with all the force of a statutory enactment. The cases where bailiffs and stenographers have on occasions been temporarily present in the grand jury room are only apparent exceptions. The rule, in its spirit and purpose, admits of no exception. In the present case it is suggested that the only testimony heard while the expert Flynn was present related to the production of certain books of account, touching which the expert interrogated the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Computer Sciences Corp.
...116 F.Supp. 817 (D.D.C.1953); United States v. Amazon Industrial Chemical Corp., 55 F.2d 254, 261-62 (D.Md.1931); United States v. Edgerton, 80 F. 374 (D.Mont.1897). These courts have noted that it is nearly impossible for an accused to prove actual prejudice as a result of the presence of ......
-
Com. v. Favulli
...the bounds to the abuse to follow such a breach of the safeguards which surround the grand jury?' (emphasis supplied). United States v. Edgerton, 80 F. 374 (D.Mont.). In People v. Minet, 296 N.Y. 315, 73 N.E.2d 529, 4 A.L.R.2d 386, the court, in holding that the defendant was not required t......
-
United States v. Crispino
...the grand jury require the dismissal of the indictment? A long line of cases supports the policy as expressed in United States v. Edgerton, 80 F. 374 (D.Montana 1897): There must not only be no improper influence or suggestion in the grand jury room, but, as suggested in Lewis v. Commission......
-
United States v. Gilboy
...D.C.E.D.Pa. 1948, 80 F.Supp. 979, at page 981; United States v. Lawn, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1953, 115 F.Supp. 674, 677; United States v. Edgerton, D.C.D.Mont.1897, 80 F. 374, 375. The mere possibility that the witness may later be indicted furnishes no basis for requiring that he be advised of his ri......