United States v. Alby, 72-CR-98.
| Decision Date | 14 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-CR-98.,72-CR-98. |
| Citation | 349 F. Supp. 331 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Frank Anthony ALBY a/k/a John J. Sopps a/k/a James Dale a/k/a Francisco Albee, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
David J. Cannon, U. S. Atty. by David B. Bukey, Asst. U. S. Atty., Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff.
Frank A. Calarco, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant.
DECISION and ORDER
The defendant has moved to dismiss the indictment. He also seeks an order to discover exculpatory evidence, to inspect the grand jury minutes, and for a bill of particulars.
The motion to dismiss is based on the defendant's contention that the indictment fails to allege with sufficient clarity a crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The defendant also urges that the language in the indictment is too broad and conclusory.
The indictment is divided into five counts and sets forth an accusation that the defendant devised a scheme to defraud certain parties by false and fraudulent representations; it charges that the United States mails were used in connection with such misrepresentations.
In my opinion, the indictment informs the defendant of the nature of the scheme with which he is charged. In Holmes v. United States, 134 F.2d 125, 134 (8th Cir. 1943), cert. denied 319 U.S. 776, 63 S.Ct. 1434, 87 L.Ed. 1722 (1943), the court stated:
I conclude that this is comparable to the indictment in United States v. Brandom, 273 F.Supp. 253 (E.D.Wis.1967); the instant indictment sets forth sufficient particulars of the alleged scheme to defraud to withstand the motion to dismiss.
With reference to the motion to discover exculpatory evidence and the motion for a bill of particulars, I find it unnecessary to grant such motions since the government's brief reflects the prosecution's intention "to furnish true copies of all the letters and invoices involved in the indictment, and generally to permit defendant to inspect all materials in the Government's file."
Regarding the defendant's motion to inspect grand jury minutes, in the absence of a particularized need being demonstrated, such motion need not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Papia
...to allow inspection of the entire investigative file, defendant's discovery motions must be denied at this time. United States v. Alby, 349 F. Supp. 331 (E.D.Wis.1972). BILL OF Defendants have also moved, pursuant to Rule 7(f), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, for a bill of particulars.......
-
United States v. Hansen, 76-CR-129.
...government be ordered to furnish them earlier. The defendant has not suggested any reasons for modifying the rule of United States v. Alby, 349 F.Supp. 331 (E.D.Wis. 1972), and United States v. Cullen, 305 F.Supp. 695 (E.D.Wis.1969), other than counsel's assertion that after reviewing all t......
-
United States v. Leo
...405 U.S. 964, 92 S.Ct. 1168, 31 L.Ed.2d 240 (1972); United States v. Moriarity, 327 F.Supp. 1045 (E.D.Wis.1972); United States v. Alby, 349 F.Supp. 331 (E.D.Wis.1972); United States v. Papia, supra, at 1384. See also Rule 6(e), F.R.Cr.P. The requisite showing has not been made by these defe......
-
United States v. Smith, Cr-146-G-73 and Cr-167-G-73.
...States v. Schembari, 484 F.2d 931 (4th Cir. 1973); United States v. Quinn, 349 F.Supp. 232, 234 (E.D.Wis.1972); United States v. Alby, 349 F.Supp. 331, 332 (E.D.Wis.1972). In regard to defendant's discovery motion, it should also be pointed out that as to the Rule 16(b) material, defendant ......