United States v. Bachert
| Decision Date | 25 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | Crim. A. No. 77-415-1. |
| Citation | 449 F. Supp. 508 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Clyde Clayton BACHERT. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
G. Daniel McCarthy, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Edward H. Weis, Asst. Defender, Defender Assoc. of Philadelphia — Fed.Ct.Div., Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
On September 28, 1977, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned an indictment charging Clyde Bachert and George Edward Price with armed bank robbery. On December 28, 1977, a superseding indictment was returned. Counts X, XI, and XII of the superseding indictment charged Bachert with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which makes it unlawful, inter alia, for a defendant to "corruptly, or by threats or force . . . endeavor to influence, intimidate, or impede any witness, in any courtroom of the United States." Counts X, XI, and XII of the indictment charge that Bachert "corruptly did endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania" in that he (1) offered to give money to one person if he would testify as an alibi witness for defendant; (2) urged another person to testify as an alibi witness; and (3) threatened to kill a Government witness if he continued to cooperate with the Government.
Defendant has moved to dismiss this indictment for improper venue. Fed.R. Crim.P. 18 provides that "the prosecution shall be had in a district in which the offense was committed." Defendant contends, and the Government concedes, that the acts complained of — the acts of offering a bribe, making threats, and other similar acts — all occurred in Carbon County, which is in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The Government argues, nevertheless, that venue is proper here because the "administration of justice" sought to be impeded was located in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We conclude that defendant Bachert's position has merit and therefore dismiss Counts X, XI and XII of the superseding indictment.
We agree with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in United States v. Swann, 142 U.S.App.D.C. 363, 441 F.2d 1053 (1971). There, as here, the acts of "endeavoring to obstruct justice" occurred in a district other than the district in which justice was sought to be obstructed. The Swann Court held that venue was proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Wilson
...States v. Swann, 441 F.2d 1053 (D.C.Cir.1971); United States v. Nadolny, 601 F.2d 940 (7th Cir.1979). See also United States v. Bachert, 449 F.Supp. 508 (E.D. Pa. 1978). 17 It should be noted that the cases referred to consider 18 U.S.C. § 1503. The principal charges here are under a differ......
-
US v. Eisenberg
...or objects or portions thereof to be inspected by the parties and their attorneys. Fed.R.Crim.P. 17(c). 27 See also United States v. Bachert, 449 F.Supp. 508 (E.D.Pa.1978), a district court opinion following Swann and issued prior to many of the above-cited circuit court 28 Section 1503 pro......
-
United States v. Reed
...States v. Wilson, 565 F.Supp. 1416, 1423-25 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (addressing charges under 18 U.S.C. ?? 1512 and 1513); United States v. Bachert, 449 F.Supp. 508, 509 (E.D.Pa.1978). 49 See United States v. Johnson, 713 F.2d 654, 658-59 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 1295, ......
-
US v. Cannistraro
...outside a district were not sufficient to establish venue in the district where the Grand Jury was sitting. United States v. Bachert, 449 F.Supp. 508 (E.D.Pa.1978). It appears there is a split in authority concerning this issue. See United States v. Reed, 773 F.2d 477 (2d Cir.1985) (discuss......