United States v. Doe, No. 291
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | LUMBARD, , FRIENDLY, Circuit , and RYAN |
| Citation | 405 F.2d 436 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John DOE, Edmund J. Devlin, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 09 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 291,Docket 32990. |
405 F.2d 436 (1968)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
John DOE, Edmund J. Devlin, Appellant.
No. 291, Docket 32990.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued December 2, 1968.
Decided December 9, 1968.
Ira B. Grudberg, New Haven, Conn., for appellant.
John Cassidento, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Jon O. Newman, U. S. Atty., Hartford, Conn., Daniel Sagrin, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Haven, Conn., on the brief), for appellee.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge, and RYAN, District Judge.*
FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge:
On November 18, 1968, Edmund J. Devlin appeared pursuant to a subpoena before a grand jury in the District Court for Connecticut which was investigating the stealing of postal money orders, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 500 and 1691. The foreman directed him to furnish exemplars of his handwriting on printed FBI forms. Four of these, designated Exhibits A, C, D and E, called respectively for the months of the year, the alphabet, numbers from zero to eighteen, and signatures. A fifth, designated Exhibit B, required the filling out of a form, which resembled a money order but was labeled "Handwriting sample form — not a negotiable instrument," with the names and, in some instances, an address of ten payees, and also with the signature "George Strouch." Devlin refused to obey the foreman's order.
Three days later Devlin, his counsel and an Assistant United States Attorney appeared before Chief Judge Timbers. Counsel contended that Devlin should be excused from compliance. With respect to Exhibit B it was claimed that the direction violated Devlin's privilege against self-incrimination. With respect to all the forms, it was claimed that the direction deprived him of the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and that requiring him to give exemplars without assurance that the writings of other persons would be submitted to the Government's expert would deny him due process of law. When Devlin persisted in his refusal, after proceedings not here challenged as to regularity and with full warning of the consequences, the court adjudged him in civil contempt, and committed him to the custody of the Attorney General "for imprisonment for thirty (30) days, or until such time as he purges himself of this contempt by furnishing the required handwriting exemplars, or until such time as the grand jury before which he appeared is discharged, whichever is earlier." We are advised that the grand jury will be discharged not later than December 22, 1968. The judge stayed execution of the sentence pending this appeal.
The contention as to deprivation of the right to counsel was not seriously pressed before us — wisely so since it is doomed by the explicit ruling in Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 267, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967). Moreover Devlin has had all the assistance any counsel could provide. We likewise need not tarry long over the due process argument, which is grounded on the statement in Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 971, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968), "that convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yoho, In re, No. 15632
...384 U.S. 364, 371, n. 9, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 1536, n. 9, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966). Accord, United States v. Doe, 295 F.Supp. 956 (D.Conn.), aff'd. 405 F.2d 436 (2d Cir.1967); In re Martorano, 464 Pa. 66, 77, 346 A.2d 22, 27-28 (1975). But see United States v. DiMauro, 441 F.2d 428, 435 (8th Cir.197......
-
United States v. Di Mauro, No. 20295
...so interpreted that case. In re Lazarus, 276 F.Supp. 434, 448 (C.D.Cal. 1967); and United States v. Doe, 295 F.Supp. 956 (D.Conn.), aff'd 405 F.2d 436 (2d Cir. 1968); see United States v. Pace, 371 F. 2d 810 (2d Cir. 1967), rev'g United States v. Piccolo, 295 F.Supp. 955, 956 (D.Conn.1967).......
-
Wise v. Murphy, No. 4480 Original.
...before the grand jury to inform it of the results and thus the availability of testimony on the point for trial. See United States v. Doe, 405 F.2d 436 (2d Cir. Of course, such use of grand jury process would have to be consistent with the Fourth Amendment standards as set forth in Part II ......
-
In re Grand Jury Proceedings, No. 73-1520.
...nonconstitutional, improper use of a subpoena does have constitutional overtones, for as Judge Friendly observed in United States v. Doe, 405 F.2d 436, 438 (2d Cir. 1968), "even though evidence is not within a testimonial privilege, the due process clause 486 F.2d 92 protects against the us......
-
Yoho, In re, No. 15632
...384 U.S. 364, 371, n. 9, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 1536, n. 9, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966). Accord, United States v. Doe, 295 F.Supp. 956 (D.Conn.), aff'd. 405 F.2d 436 (2d Cir.1967); In re Martorano, 464 Pa. 66, 77, 346 A.2d 22, 27-28 (1975). But see United States v. DiMauro, 441 F.2d 428, 435 (8th Cir.197......
-
United States v. Di Mauro, No. 20295
...so interpreted that case. In re Lazarus, 276 F.Supp. 434, 448 (C.D.Cal. 1967); and United States v. Doe, 295 F.Supp. 956 (D.Conn.), aff'd 405 F.2d 436 (2d Cir. 1968); see United States v. Pace, 371 F. 2d 810 (2d Cir. 1967), rev'g United States v. Piccolo, 295 F.Supp. 955, 956 (D.Conn.1967).......
-
Wise v. Murphy, No. 4480 Original.
...before the grand jury to inform it of the results and thus the availability of testimony on the point for trial. See United States v. Doe, 405 F.2d 436 (2d Cir. Of course, such use of grand jury process would have to be consistent with the Fourth Amendment standards as set forth in Part II ......
-
In re Grand Jury Proceedings, No. 73-1520.
...nonconstitutional, improper use of a subpoena does have constitutional overtones, for as Judge Friendly observed in United States v. Doe, 405 F.2d 436, 438 (2d Cir. 1968), "even though evidence is not within a testimonial privilege, the due process clause 486 F.2d 92 protects against the us......