United States v. Crolich
Decision Date | 04 January 1952 |
Docket Number | Cr. 12460. |
Citation | 101 F. Supp. 782 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. CROLICH et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
Ben Brooks, Special Asst. to the Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.
No attorneys for defendants.
On December 14, 1950, the grand jury returned an indictment against Peter Vincent Crolich Sr. and twenty-two other defendants, charging them with conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 241, to injure and oppress the legal and qualified voters of the First Congressional District of Alabama in the free exercise and enjoyment of the right of suffrage; that is, the right to cast a ballot for the offices of United States Senator and for United States Representative for the First Congressional District of Alabama, and to have such votes honestly counted as cast.
The evidence disclosed corrupt practices in the election of May 2, 1950. These corrupt practices consisted in many individuals impersonating qualified electors appearing on the rolls and voting in their names; and also in election officials knowingly permitting this to be done. The indictment named many co-conspirators who were not indicted. Of the twenty-three defendants indicted, the cases against two were nol-prossed at the request of the Government; two entered pleas of guilty; and nineteen entered pleas of nolo contendere.
On October 12, 1951, the day set for the sentencing of these defendants, the Government, through a Special Assistant to the Attorney General, made a motion in open court requesting that the testimony before the grand jury as to illegal activities and corruption on the part of election officials be made known to the board for Mobile County charged with the duty of appointing election officials. Said motion was taken under advisement on that date, and is this day overruled for the reasons herein stated.
Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C., reads in part as follows: * * *"
The law as it now stands may be stated thus: The rule of secrecy of such proceedings may be relaxed by permitting disclosure in accordance with Rule 6(e), supra, whenever the interest of justice requires. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, D.C., 4 F.Supp. 283; U.S. v. Byoir, 5 Cir., 147 F.2d 336.
In the case of United States v. Papaioanu, D.C., 10 F.R.D. 517, 518, Chief Judge Leahy, of the District of Delaware, gives perhaps the most perfect digest of all the court opinions. Judge Leahy stated: 1 2 3 4 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Ben Grunstein & Sons Company
...1951, 191 F.2d 246; U. S. v. Owen, D.C.W.D. Mo.1951, 11 F.R.D. 371; U. S. v. White, D.C.N.J.1952, 104 F.Supp. 120. 5 U. S. v. Crolich, D.C.S.D.Ala.1952, 101 F.Supp. 782, and see cases in footnote 6 Metzler v. U. S., 9 Cir., 1933, 64 F.2d 203; U. S. v. General Motors Corp., D.C. Del.1954, 15......
-
IN RE REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF JUNE 5, 1972 GRAND JURY
...in the indictment. 18 U.S. Code § 554(a), 1946 edition. 37 United States v. Downey, 195 F.Supp. 581 (D.Ill.1961); United States v. Crolich, 101 F.Supp. 782 (D.Ala.1952). 38 Compare In re Petition for Disclosure of Evidence, supra note 28 with In re Holovachka, 317 F.2d 834 (7th Cir. 1963) a......
-
United States v. Procter & Gamble Company
...affirmed 5 Cir., 1945, 147 F.2d 336; Application of Bendix Aviation Corporation, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1945, 58 F.Supp. 953; United States v. Crolich, D.C.S.D.Ala. 1952, 101 F.Supp. 782; In re Bullock, D.C.D.C.1952, 103 F.Supp. 639, not a single one, save Bendix, involves the impounding of Grand Jury......
-
Corona Construction Co. v. Ampress Brick Co., Inc., 73 C 1082.
...attorney for any county or state government. See United States of America v. Downey, 195 F.Supp. 581 (S.D.Ill.1961); United States v. Crolich, 101 F.Supp. 782 (S.D.Ala.1952). Even though one of the plaintiffs is the State of Illinois represented by its Attorney General and his assistants, i......