United States v. Boria

• Decision Date: 25 October 1973
• Docket Number: Crim. No. 92-73.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Manuel de Jesus BORIA, aka Nicolas de Jesus Boria, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

371 F. Supp. 1068

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Manuel de Jesus BORIA, aka Nicolas de Jesus Boria, Defendant.

Crim. No. 92-73.

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

October 25, 1973.

U. S. Atty., San Juan, P. R., for plaintiff.

John L. A. C. de Passalacqua, University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras, P. R., for defendant.

ORDER

TOLEDO, Chief Judge.

This case is before the Court pursuant to defendant's motion for bill of particulars and motion for provision of Spanish language interpreter and record. The Court having had the benefit of the memorandum filed by the parties and being otherwise fully advised upon the premises, finds that both defendant's motions should be denied and are hereby denied.

The motion of bill of particulars submitted by the defendant on September 3, 1973, was not resolved on the merits. As to that motion, the Court instructed attorney for the defendant to meet with the United States Attorney to effect informal discovery as required by Rule 2 of this Court. After such session if defendant's counsel was not satisfied as to any of the particulars, he had requested, he was to come forward by way of motion. Subsequent to the informal session of discovery being held, counsel for the defendant filed a second motion for particulars which the Court now considers.

It appears that at the informal discovery session the defense was provided by the prosecution with all the information requested and, in fact, the defense was given more discovery than that which is allowed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and particularly by Section 3500 of Title 18, United States Code. The so called additional particulars requested in this second motion are nothing more than a request by the defendant that this Court order the Government to produce the informer and make him available to the defense. The Court finds this request too far fetched and can find no basis in the law to compel the Government to comply with such request.

Under Section 3500, supra, the Government is not even required to furnish the names of the prosecution witnesses in advance of trial to the defense, and the function of the bill of particulars does not provide for such a purpose. See Yeargain v. United States, 9 Cir., 314 F.2d 881; United States v. Yetman, 196 F.Supp. 569, 570 (D.C.Conn.1961):

The leading case on the question of the identity of the informer is Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639. Even under the most liberal interpretation of this case the Government cannot be compelled to do more than provide the name and last known address of the informer and only after a showing by the defendant of materiality of said witness to his case. Although the defendant has not made such a showing, the Court finds that the Government has nevertheless provided the name and last known address of the informer in this case.

The other particular requested in the motion, the Court finds that was voluntarily provided by the Government when it furnished copies of BNDD Form 202 dated April 5 and May 7, 1973, respectively.

Defendant's motion for provision of Spanish language interpreter and records is basically a request on the part of the defendant to alter the present method now in use by this Court of providing interpreter in those instances where either the defendant or the witnesses are unable to speak or understand English. The gist of this motion is a petition to this Court for the adoption of the following measures:

1. Establishment of a system of a simultaneous translation of English to Spanish and Spanish to English. Such system to be implemented by the use of electronic equipment intended for that purpose.

2. Establish a system whereby the original testimony and the translated testimony may be recorded and reported.

3. Establish an original language record and a translated record where the former shall be controlling upon the latter.

Additionally, defendant requests that if the Court should deny any part of the aforesaid motion, then it is prayed that this Court initiate proceedings to convene a three judge court for the purpose of challenging the constitutionality of Section 42, 39 Stat. 966, as amended, on the basis that it is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, Articles 5, 6 and 14.

The necessity for this novel system proposed by the defendant is predicated upon the contention that he is unable to speak or understand English and that some of the witnesses will present their testimony in English and that the translation to be made by the Court interpreter will not be...