United States v. Bohr, No. 64-CR-99.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtIrving D. Gaines, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant Joling
Citation406 F. Supp. 1218
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Clem A. BOHR and Robert J. Joling, Defendants.
Decision Date11 February 1976
Docket NumberNo. 64-CR-99.

406 F. Supp. 1218

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Clem A. BOHR and Robert J. Joling, Defendants.

No. 64-CR-99.

United States District Court, E. D. Wisconsin.

February 11, 1976.


William J. Mulligan, U.S. Atty., Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff.

Irving D. Gaines, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant Joling.

DECISION AND ORDER

REYNOLDS, Chief Judge.

A motion has been brought by defendant Robert J. Joling for an order directing the expunging from the records of this court all reference contained in a Grand Jury indictment issued August 4, 1964, by a Federal Grand Jury in the Eastern District of Wisconsin which named Joling, among others, as a defendant. Joling has further moved this court for an order expunging the records of arrest and for an order directing all law enforcement agencies, including the

406 F. Supp. 1219
United States Attorney, the Justice Department, and federal investigative agencies to remove from their files all notations or references to the arrest in this proceeding. The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin does not oppose such an order. The Court, on its own motion, has requested briefs from counsel discussing the legal authority for granting the requested remedy. For the reasons set forth below, the motion must be granted and Joling's record of indictment and arrest expunged

On August 4, 1964, defendant Joling, an attorney and member of the State Bar of Wisconsin, was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (use of the mails with intent to defraud). On the same day a warrant was issued for his arrest, requiring Joling to appear and answer to the indictment. Joling appeared and entered a plea of not guilty. He subsequently brought a motion to quash the indictment. On October 20, 1964, the Assistant United States Attorney in charge of the prosecution submitted a letter to the court indicting that the United States Attorney's office did not desire to contest Joling's motion to quash, but that the prosecution was not to be permanently abandoned. On November 4, 1964, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Honorable Robert E. Tehan, District Judge, ordered the indictment against Joling dismissed. No other proceeding of any nature has since been instituted against the defendant.

In 1971, Joling moved to Arizona. He has expressed the desire to make application for taking the Arizona Bar examination and to apply for certain Civil Service positions with the federal government. Defendant Joling believes that his indictment and arrest, required to be disclosed on applications for such positions, would unjustly hinder him in present and future activities. This motion to expunge all references to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Police Com'r of Boston v. Municipal Court of Dorchester Dist.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 16, 1978
    ...162 U.S.App.D.C. 284, 498 F.2d 1017 (1974); where there was a dismissal or nolle prosequi entered prior to trial, United States v. Bohr, 406 F.Supp. 1218 (E.D.Wis.1976); where the defendant was acquitted, Davidson v. Dill, 180 Colo. 123, 503 P.2d 157 (1972); or where other factors exonerate......
  • United States v. Benlizar, Crim. No. 76-760.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • October 3, 1978
    ...on the facts and circumstances in each case. United States v. Schnitzer, 567 F.2d at 599 (2d Cir. Nov. 30, 1977); United States v. Bohr, 406 F.Supp. 1218, 1219 (E.D.Wis. 1976); United States v. Seasholtz, 376 F.Supp. 1288, 1298 (N.D.Okl.1976); United States v. Rosen, 343 F.Supp. 804, 809 (S......
  • Hearn v. Hudson, Civ. A. No. 78-0248-R.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • April 23, 1982
    ...v. Pettibone, 465 F.2d 49, 52-53 (4th Cir. 1972). See Doe v. Webster, 606 F.2d 1226, 1230-31 (D.C.Cir. 1979); United States v. Bohr, 406 F.Supp. 1218 (E.D.Wis.1976); Wheeler v. Goodman, 306 F.Supp. 58 (W.D.N.C.1969), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 401 U.S. 987, 91 S.Ct. 1219, 28 L.E......
  • Doe v. Webster, No. 77-2011
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • October 17, 1979
    ...misleading testimony); Grandison v. Warden, 423 F.Supp. 112 (D.Md.1976) (youth improperly tried as an adult); United States v. Bohr, 406 F.Supp. 1218 (E.D.Wis.1976) (arrest record of attorney whose indictment for mail fraud was dismissed, the court finding that no law enforcement purpose wo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Police Com'r of Boston v. Municipal Court of Dorchester Dist.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 16, 1978
    ...162 U.S.App.D.C. 284, 498 F.2d 1017 (1974); where there was a dismissal or nolle prosequi entered prior to trial, United States v. Bohr, 406 F.Supp. 1218 (E.D.Wis.1976); where the defendant was acquitted, Davidson v. Dill, 180 Colo. 123, 503 P.2d 157 (1972); or where other factors exonerate......
  • United States v. Benlizar, Crim. No. 76-760.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • October 3, 1978
    ...on the facts and circumstances in each case. United States v. Schnitzer, 567 F.2d at 599 (2d Cir. Nov. 30, 1977); United States v. Bohr, 406 F.Supp. 1218, 1219 (E.D.Wis. 1976); United States v. Seasholtz, 376 F.Supp. 1288, 1298 (N.D.Okl.1976); United States v. Rosen, 343 F.Supp. 804, 809 (S......
  • Florida Medical Ass'n v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ETC., No. 78-178-Civ-J-S.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • July 11, 1978
    ...F.2d 728, 740 (1969). Cf. Utz v. Cullinane, 172 U.S.App.D.C. 67, 72-3, 520 F.2d 467, 472-73 n. 9 (1975); United States States v. Bohr, 406 F.Supp. 1218, 1219 (E.D.Wis.1976); Morgan v. Serro Travel Trailer Co., 69 F.R.D. 697, 703 (D.Kan. 1975). The doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction, then, "......
  • Hearn v. Hudson, Civ. A. No. 78-0248-R.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • April 23, 1982
    ...v. Pettibone, 465 F.2d 49, 52-53 (4th Cir. 1972). See Doe v. Webster, 606 F.2d 1226, 1230-31 (D.C.Cir. 1979); United States v. Bohr, 406 F.Supp. 1218 (E.D.Wis.1976); Wheeler v. Goodman, 306 F.Supp. 58 (W.D.N.C.1969), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 401 U.S. 987, 91 S.Ct. 1219, 28 L.E......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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