United States v. Garsson
| Citation | 291 F. 646 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. GARSSON et al. |
| Decision Date | 01 February 1923 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
John N Johnston and Elijah N. Zoline, of New York City, for Garsson.
Charles E. Buchner, of New York City, for I. M. Wormser.
John Holley Clark, Jr., of New York City, for the United States.
LEARNED HAND, District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
As to the presence of a stenographer in the grand jury room, I need only refer to Wilson v. U.S., 229 F. 344, 347, 143 C.C.A. 464; U.S. v. Morse et al., 292 F. 273 Opinion of A. N. Hand, J., filed September 27, 1922.
The second objection is this: Judge Foster's designation appointed him to sit 'during the period beginning September 1, 1922, and ending November 1, 1922, and for such further time as may be required to complete unfinished business. ' The Chief Justice signed it on June 2, 1922. On September 14, 1922 (42 Stat. 837), the Judicial Code was amended, and to section 18 a proviso was added which is applicable to such appointments as these, though they are not made under that section, but under section 13. This proviso reads as follows:
'In case a trial has been entered upon before such period of service has expired and has not been concluded, the period of service shall be deemed to be extended until the trial has been concluded.'
On November 1, 1922, Judge Foster was engaged in trying certain defendants under an indictment, as to whom the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty on the seventeenth. The rest of the defendants in that cause had, however, pleaded guilty and had not been sentenced. On the 22d, Judge Foster allowed these defendants to withdraw those pleas and plead not guilty. This terminated his conduct of the case in question. On November 21, 1922, after the acquittal of those defendants on trial, but before the withdrawal of the pleas of guilty of the others, Judge Foster learning that the grand jury had given out certain information to the press, called them before him and directed that they be discharged. The district attorney thereupon said that they had 'found' several indictments which he begged leave to have them prepare and file that day. The judge agreed to allow them until the 23d to do so. In accordance with this leave all the indictments in question were duly filed on the 23d.
Judge Foster's unfinished business at least did not terminate with the acquittal of those who stood trial. The judge had yet to dispose of those who had pleaded guilty, presumably by a sentence. On November 22d he did dispose of their cases by allowing them to withdraw their pleas. While this 'business' lasted he was authorized to perform all the duties of a local district judge, among which was that of receiving indictments. Had these indictments been handed up on the 21st, when the district attorney offered to have them prepared, the case therefore would be free from any doubt. However, they were not found in fact till the 23d, and the question is whether to receive them was part of Judge Foster's 'unfinished business.' I agree that it was not business unfinished on November 1, 1922, because the grand jury's business is not the judge's. But since his term for all purposes continued till the 22d, a matter which had come up within that time and which he for convenience had put over beyond the conclusion of the cause seems to me to be within the phrase, 'to complete unfinished business.'
I need not hold that if he had taken up something new on November 23d he would have had jurisdiction. The judge did nothing of the kind. These indictments had come up before him within the period when he had unquestioned jurisdiction. I think that his appointment must have been understood to cover all routine matters, of which this was one, arising while the cause was on, and that he was authorized to finish anything so arising after having once taken jurisdiction over it. The appointment is to be read in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Costello
...D.C., 5 F. 343, 348; Compare: United States v. Violon, C.C., 173 F. 501; United States v. Morse, D.C., 292 F. 273, 278; United States v. Garsson, D.C., 291 F. 646. 1 Hoffman v. Palmer, 2 Cir., 129 F.2d 976, 987; Slifka v. Johnson, 2 Cir., 161 F. 2d 467, 470. 2 See, e. g., United States v. K......
-
United States v. Wilson
...v. Costello, 119 F.Supp. 159 (S.D.N.Y.1954). See also United States v. Kahaner, 203 F.Supp. 78 (S.D.N.Y.1962); United States v. Garsson, 291 F. 646 (S.D.N.Y.1923) (L.Hand, J.). 87 United States v. Gordon, 493 F.Supp. 814, 816-17 (N.D.N.Y.1980), aff'd, 655 F.2d 478 (2d Cir.1981); United Stat......
-
United States v. Smyth
...to fear is the archaic formalism and the watery sentiment that obstructs, delays, and defeats the prosecution of crime." United States v. Garsson, D.C., 291 F. 646, 649. The court refuses to inspect the record or hear testimony on the issues presented. The court finds that the specification......
-
Kyles v. Whitley
...that "[o]ur procedure has always been haunted by the ghost of an innocent man convicted. It is an unreal dream." United States v. Garsson, 291 F. 646, 649 (S.D.N.Y.1923). I fear that in this instance it is not simply a dream. I therefore verdict and death sentence are undermined, I would gr......
-
Digital ecosystem of accountability
...condemn the innocent”); cf. Mosteller, supra note 153, at 273 (describing how Judge Learned Hand’s statement in United States v. Garsson, 291 F. 646, 649 (S.D.N.Y. 1923), has become a “relic of the past” and could not survive recent scandals involving conviction of innocent defendants). In ......
-
Lego v. Twomey: the improbable relationship between an obscure Supreme Court decision and wrongful convictions.
...have convicted innocent people and have even sentenced some to death. Garrett, supra note 189, at 649 (quoting United States v. Garsson, 291 F. 646, 649 (S.D.N.Y. 1923)). As of February 2010, 251 people have been exonerated by DNA testing. See The Innocence Project, at (http:// www.innocenc......
-
Double helix, double bind: factual innocence and postconviction DNA testing.
...Roger J. Traynor, Ground Lost and Found in Criminal Discovery, 39 N.Y.U. L. REV. 228, 229-30 (1964). But see United States v. Garsson, 291 F. 646, 649 (S.D.N.Y. 1923) (Hand, J.) (denying the defendant's motion to inspect the grand jury's minutes); State v. Tune, 98 A.2d 881, 886-91 (N.J. 19......
-
THE COURT AND THE SUSPECT: HUMAN FRAILTY, THE CALCULATING CRIMINAL, AND THE PENITENT IN THE INTERROGATION ROOM.
...The National Registry of Exonerations Annual Report, NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONS 3 (March 1,2020). (260.) United States v. Garsson, 291 F. 646, 649 (S.D.N.Y. (261.) DNA Exonerations, supra note 259; see also Facts and Figures, FALSE CONFESSIONS.ORG, https://falseconfessions.org/fact-s......