U.S. v. Frederick

Decision Date01 September 1978
Docket NumberNo. 77-5361,77-5361
Citation583 F.2d 273
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ervy T. FREDERICK, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

William Fortune, Federal Public Defender, Edwin J. Walbourne, III, Lexington, Ky., for defendant-appellant.

Patrick H. Molloy, U. S. Atty., John A. West, Asst. U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judge, and NEESE *, District Judge.

PHILLIPS, Chief Judge.

Appellant, Ervy T. Frederick, was indicted on July 28, 1977, for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 842(i) which prohibits the transportation of explosives in interstate commerce by any convicted felon. Frederick previously had pleaded guilty to the state charge of receiving the explosives which had been stolen.

On October 4, 1977, the district court overruled Frederick's motion to dismiss the indictment for failure of the Government to obtain the approval of the Attorney General for dual prosecution prior to the institution of the charges. Authority for the dual prosecution was received from the Department of Justice on October 17, 1977, and made known to Frederick's counsel on October 18, 1977, the date trial commenced. On October 19, 1977, the jury returned a verdict of guilty and Frederick subsequently was sentenced to three years imprisonment.

Frederick raises four grounds for reversal, contending that: (1) the district court erred in admitting testimony that he did not have a license to transport explosives; (2) comments by the Government attorney regarding the potentially destructive capabilities of the explosives were prejudicial; (3) the district court erred in refusing to strike the testimony of a police officer who destroyed contemporaneous notes of an interview with defendant; and (4) the district court erred in refusing to dismiss the indictment when it appeared that the federal charges arose out of the same facts as the state prosecution and that the United States Attorney had not obtained the approval of the Attorney General for dual prosecution prior to the institution of the charges.

We affirm.

Upon a review of the record and the arguments of counsel, we find appellant's first and second assignments of error to be wholly without merit. Frederick next asserts that the district court erred in refusing to strike the testimony of a police officer who destroyed contemporaneous notes of an interview with defendant allegedly in violation of the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500. This court has held, however, that the destruction of such notes does not constitute a violation of the Jencks Act. See, e. g., United States v. McCallie, 554 F.2d 770, 773 (6th Cir. 1977); United States v. Stephens,492 F.2d 1367, 1377 (6th Cir.), Cert. denied, 419 U.S. 852, 95 S.Ct. 93, 42 L.Ed.2d 83 (1974). Accordingly, appellant's contentions are without merit.

Finally, Frederick argues that the district court erred in refusing to dismiss the indictment based on the Petite Policy of the Department of Justice which directs that no federal prosecution should be instituted following a state prosecution for the same offense without approval by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General and review by the Attorney General. Attorney General William Rogers established the policy in April, 1959, in response to decisions of the Supreme Court holding that the Constitution does not prohibit prosecutions by both the state and federal governments for the same criminal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • U.S. v. Beckley
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • July 22, 1992
    ...101 S.Ct. 274 (1980). The Petite policy "is not constitutionally mandated and confers no rights upon the accused." United States v. Frederick, 583 F.2d 273, 274 (6th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 860, 100 S.Ct. 124 (1979). Only the government has standing to seek a dismissal of an indic......
  • U.S. v. Wilson, 04-1918.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • July 1, 2005
    ...e.g., United States v. Snell, 592 F.2d 1083 (9th Cir.1979); United States v. Howard, 590 F.2d 564 (4th Cir.1979); United States v. Frederick, 583 F.2d 273 (6th Cir.1978); United States v. Thompson, 579 F.2d 1184 (10th Cir. 1978)(en banc); United States v. Wallace, 578 F.2d 735 (5th Cir.1978......
  • U.S. v. Fossler
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • June 20, 1979
    ...that Fossler's Petite policy argument is groundless. See United States v. Nelligan, 573 F.2d at 254-55. Accord, United States v. Frederick, 583 F.2d 273, 274 (6th Cir. 1978); United States v. Musgrove,581 F.2d 406, 407 (4th Cir. 1978); United States v. Fritz, 580 F.2d 370, 374-75 (10th Cir.......
  • US v. Lopez, Criminal No. 95-50010.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • January 31, 1996
    ...been clear that the Petite policy is not constitutionally mandated and that it confers no rights upon the accused. United States v. Frederick, 583 F.2d 273, 274 (6th Cir.1978). As such, defendants do not have standing to assert violations of this policy. United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 56......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Operation-Infrastructure and Practice
    • United States
    • Environmental crimes deskbook 2nd edition Part One
    • June 20, 2014
    ...U.S. 944 (1979); United States v. Howard, 590 F.2d 564 (4th Cir. 1979), cert. denied , 440 U.S. 976 (1979); United States v. Frederick, 583 F.2d 273 (6th Cir. 1978); United States v. hompson, 579 F.2d 1184 (10th Cir. 1978) (en banc); United States v. Wallace, 578 F.2d 735 (5th Cir. 1978); U......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT