United States v. Birrell, No. 61 Cr. 692.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | William J. Brennan, III, New York City, for defendant, Lowell M. Birrell |
| Citation | 263 F. Supp. 113 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Lowell M. BIRRELL, Defendant. |
| Docket Number | No. 61 Cr. 692. |
| Decision Date | 19 January 1967 |
263 F. Supp. 113
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Lowell M. BIRRELL, Defendant.
No. 61 Cr. 692.
United States District Court S. D. New York.
January 19, 1967.
Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., for Southern District of New York, for the United States of America; Arthur L. Liman, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., and Stephen L. Hammerman, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel.
William J. Brennan, III, New York City, for defendant, Lowell M. Birrell.
OPINION
HERLANDS, District Judge:
Defendant's motion for a bill of particulars (Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(f)) seeks to compel the Government to supply him with thirty-six items of information identified in the motion papers as particulars "(a)" to "(jj)".
The motion, originally filed September 4, 1964 and subsequently adjourned and thereafter struck from the motion calendar, was revived and brought on for hearing by a written notice filed October 28, 1966. This procedure was consented to by the Government and approved by the Court, at a pretrial conference held on October 17, 1966.
On January 10, 1967, both sides submitted the motion on the motion papers and briefs, and the Court reserved decision.
Although the motion was first made in 1964, the chronology just recited shows that the merits of the motion should be determined under FedR.Crim.P. 7(f), as amended July 1, 1966.
The relevant amendment is the deletion of the words "for cause" from the sentence: "The court for cause may direct the filing of a bill of particulars."
The Advisory Committee's Note to this amendment states that the elimination of the requirement of a showing of cause "is designed to encourage a more liberal attitude by the courts toward bills of particulars without taking away the discretion which courts must have in dealing with such motions in individual cases."
The "more liberal attitude" to be adopted with respect to a motion for a bill of particulars does not alter the two basic purposes of a bill of particulars. Those purposes are (1) to apprise the defendant of the crime charged with sufficient particularity to enable him to prepare a proper defense and avoid prejudicial surprise at trial, and (2) to enable him to plead his acquittal or conviction as a bar to later prosecution for the same offense.
As the Court of Appeals said in United States v. Russo, 260 F.2d 849, 850 (2d Cir. 1958):
"It is obviously a matter of degree how far an accused must be advised in advance of the details of the evidence that will be produced against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Birrell, 61 Cr. 692.
...by this Court on the Government's consent; "(4)" was partially granted by this Court on January 19, 1967. United States v. Birrell, 263 F.Supp. 113 (1967); and "(5)" was, on September 21, 1964, marked off the calendar on consent of all counsel subject to restoration; was subsequently revive......
-
United States v. Price, Crim. No. 78-CR-4.
...for example, that a defendant is entitled neither to a wholesale discovery of the Government's evidence. United States v. Birrell, 263 F.Supp. 113, (S.D.N. Y.1967), nor to a list of the Government's prospective witnesses, United States v. Jaskiewicz, supra; United States v. Palmisano, 273 F......
-
United States v. Boffa, Crim. A. No. 80-36.
...firmly established that a defendant is entitled neither to a wholesale discovery of the Government's evidence, United States v. Birrell, 263 F.Supp. 113 (S.D.N.Y.1967), nor to a list of the Government's prospective witnesses, United States v. Jaskiewicz, 278 F.Supp. 525 (E.D.Pa.1968). Furth......
-
United States v. Tanner, 67 CR 30.
...26 F.R.D. 168 (D.Conn.1960); and see United States v. Bonnet, 247 F.Supp. 415 (E.D. La.1965); But cf. United States v. Birrell, 263 F.Supp. 113 279 F. Supp. 477 There is no basis for defendants' request in item 24 for the time of day of the conversation between Chipman and Christine Plump, ......
-
United States v. Birrell, No. 61 Cr. 692.
...by this Court on the Government's consent; "(4)" was partially granted by this Court on January 19, 1967. United States v. Birrell, 263 F.Supp. 113 (1967); and "(5)" was, on September 21, 1964, marked off the calendar on consent of all counsel subject to restoration; was subsequently revive......
-
United States v. Boffa, Crim. A. No. 80-36.
...firmly established that a defendant is entitled neither to a wholesale discovery of the Government's evidence, United States v. Birrell, 263 F.Supp. 113 (S.D.N.Y.1967), nor to a list of the Government's prospective witnesses, United States v. Jaskiewicz, 278 F.Supp. 525 (E.D.Pa.1968). Furth......
-
United States v. Price, Crim. No. 78-CR-4.
...for example, that a defendant is entitled neither to a wholesale discovery of the Government's evidence. United States v. Birrell, 263 F.Supp. 113, (S.D.N. Y.1967), nor to a list of the Government's prospective witnesses, United States v. Jaskiewicz, supra; United States v. Palmisano, 273 F......
-
United States v. Tanner, No. 67 CR 30.
...26 F.R.D. 168 (D.Conn.1960); and see United States v. Bonnet, 247 F.Supp. 415 (E.D. La.1965); But cf. United States v. Birrell, 263 F.Supp. 113 279 F. Supp. 477 There is no basis for defendants' request in item 24 for the time of day of the conversation between Chipman and Christine Plump, ......