United States v. Fancher
| Decision Date | 17 October 1960 |
| Docket Number | 10204.,Crim. No. 10018 |
| Citation | 195 F. Supp. 634 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Morris C. FANCHER. UNITED STATES of America v. Margaret FANCHER. |
Harry W. Hultgren, Jr., U. S. Atty., Hartford, Conn., for the United States.
Joseph P. Cooney, Hartford, Conn., for defendants.
Defendants resist a Government motion to consolidate for trial the separate indictments of the defendants Fancher. The defense claims are that the subject matter concerning the two defendants is not the same and therefore a consolidation is improper; also that a fair trial will be denied defendant Morris Fancher if coupled at trial with his wife Margaret.
Rule 13, F.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C., provides that "the court may order two or more indictments * * * to be tried together if * * * the defendants * * * could have been joined in a single indictment * * *." In the instant case, Morris Fancher was indicted in February 1960 on three counts of wilful tax evasion, covering the years 1953, 1954 and 1955, Int.Rev.Code of 1939, Sec. 145(b), 26 U.S.C. § 145(b); Int.Rev. Code of 1954, Sec. 7201, 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7201. His wife Margaret was indicted by the Grand Jury in September 1960 on charges of the identical offense for the years 1954 and 1955. The tax returns in issue were joint returns signed and filed by both defendants. The transactions referred to in the two indictments are therefore identical, except for the charge against Morris for 1953.
The Federal Courts, in the administration of Rule 13 and its substantially similar predecessor, 18 U.S.C. former Sec. 557, have recognized as proper the consolidation of indictments far less factually integrated in their interrelationships than the ones presently in question. Gomez v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 344, certiorari denied 355 U.S. 863, 78 S.Ct. 95, 2 L.Ed.2d 68; Daley v. United States, 1 Cir., 1956, 231 F.2d 123. It is evident that this case is one where the defendants "could have been joined in a single indictment". There is no question that a consolidation order, therefore, is within the power of the court.
The universal rule is that the exercise of the power to consolidate is one which lies in the trial court's discretion, Daley v. United States, supra, 231 F.2d at page 126; United States v. Rosenblum, 7 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 321, 324. The exercise of that discretion should be determined by the resolution of two sometimes conflicting policies; the promotion of economy and efficiency in judicial administration by the avoidance of needless multiplicity of trials, Daley v. United State, supra; Turner v. United States, 4 Cir., 1955, 222 F.2d 926, 932, certiorari denied 350 U.S. 831, 76 S.Ct. 65, 100 L.Ed. 472; and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jasch v. State
...is where the evidence to support the charges against the several defendants is virtually identical.' Wright cites United States v. Fancher, D.C.D.Conn.1960, 195 F.Supp. 634, where it is "One might almost say that it would have been an abuse of discretion to require separate trials as to the......
-
U.S. v. Halper
...v. Lotsch, 102 F.2d 35, 36 (2d Cir.), Cert. denied, 307 U.S. 622, 59 S.Ct. 793, 83 L.Ed. 1500 (1939); United States v. Fancher, 195 F.Supp. 634, 635 (D.Conn.1960) (Smith, Circuit Judge). But, as with any power assigned to the discretion of the district court, there are limits, either expres......
-
United States v. Fancher
...against Morris Fancher with respect to the year 1953 is not included in the indictment against Margaret Fancher. United States v. Fancher, D.C.D. Conn.1960, 195 F.Supp. 634. Margaret Fancher now moves for the production, discovery and inspection of the following (1) All papers obtained from......
-
Brown v. Com.
...discretion in applying the rule. See for example United States v. Corallo, 309 F.Supp. 1282, 1284 (D.C.N.Y.1970); United States v. Fancher, 195 F.Supp. 634 (D.C.Conn.1960); United States v. Elliott, 418 F.2d 219 (C.A. 9th Cir. 1969); Tillman v. United States, 406 F.2d 930 (C.A. 9th Cir. 196......