Application of Iaconi
| Decision Date | 20 April 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 54-34.,54-34. |
| Citation | 120 F. Supp. 589 |
| Parties | Application of IACONI. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., Maguire & Roach & Garrity, Boston, Mass., for applicant.
Anthony Julian, U. S. Atty., W. Langdon Powers, Asst. U. S. Atty., Boston, Mass., for opponent.
I have before me an application of Frank Iaconi praying that this Court shall quash certain subpoenas requiring other persons to appear before a Grand Jury now sitting in this Court; that the proceedings of the said Grand Jury be stayed; and that the United States Attorney be directed to refrain from causing the said Grand Jury to investigate alleged violations by the applicant of Section 145(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A., such direction to be effective until this Court has disposed of United States v. Iaconi, Criminal No. 53-35.
During the presentation of the application before me statements were received from both Iaconi's counsel, Mr. Garrity, and from Mr. Powers, acting as Assistant United States Attorney. Neither of these gentlemen was under oath but each of them made statements as a member of the bar of this Court and subject to the usual sanctions which operate under these circumstances, including the sanction of contempt.
Both the applicant and the opponent agree that Frank Iaconi was heretofore indicted by an earlier Grand Jury and this indictment has not yet come to trial. There is now pending before Judge McCarthy, to whom the indictment has been assigned for trial, a motion by Iaconi for a bill of particulars. The United States Attorney would be able to prepare these particulars, if the motion is allowed, by testimony which might be given by some of the persons now under summons by the United States Attorney to appear before the Grand Jury now in session.
Mr. Powers, in his official capacity as Assistant United States Attorney, has represented to this Court that so far as he is aware the testimony of the subpoenaed witnesses would be likely to serve, principally, two purposes. One would be to give additional information to the government which would be of use to it in particularizing the indictment and in trying the indictment in the case of United States v. Iaconi, Number 53-35 already referred to. A second purpose would be to marshal evidence before the Grand Jury now sitting with the probability that evidence so marshalled, together with other evidence, might be utilized more likely by a subsequent Grand Jury than the present Grand Jury in determining whether to return indictments of persons other than Frank Iaconi but who may have been associated with him.
An initial question which must be faced is whether the applicant, Frank Iaconi, has a standing to sue in the particular manner set forth in the application. Iaconi himself, it will be remembered, is not the person...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robert Hawthorne, Inc. v. Director of Int. Rev.
...Cir. 1971). Post-indictment attempts to gather evidence: United States v. Fisher, 455 F.2d 1101, 1104-05 (2d Cir. 1972); In re Iaconi, 120 F.Supp. 589 (D.Mass.1954); but see United States v. Doe Ellsberg, 455 F.2d 1270 (1st Cir. 30 Those claims of abuse which relate to violations of the 6(e......
-
U.S. v. Doss
...States v. Dardi, 330 F.2d 316, 336 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 845, 85 S.Ct. 50, 13 L.Ed.2d 50 (1964), and Application of Iaconi, 120 F.Supp. 589, 591 (D.Mass.1954). Compare United States v. Braasch, 505 F.2d 139, 147 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 910, 95 S.Ct. 1562, 43 L.Ed......
-
United States v. Johns-Manville Corporation
...District Court, 238 F.2d 713, 722 (4th Cir., 1956), cert. den. 352 U.S. 981, 77 S.Ct. 382, 1 L. Ed.2d 365 (1957); Application of Iaconi, 120 F.Supp. 589, 591 (D.Mass.1954); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 4 F.Supp. 283, 284 15 Application of Linen Supply Cos., 15 F.R.D. 115, 118 (S.D.N.Y.1953......
-
U.S. v. Gibbons
...investigation, the proceeding would not be improper merely because the Government may derive an incidental benefit. Application of Iaconi, 120 F.Supp. 589, 590-91 (D.Mass.). The appellant has not demonstrated that Hoover's testimony before the grand jury was for the sole or dominant purpose......