United States v. Handley, H Cr 75-208.
| Decision Date | 04 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. H Cr 75-208.,H Cr 75-208. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Billy Joe HANDLEY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
John R. Wilks, U. S. Atty., Fort Wayne, Ind., for plaintiff.
Joseph Van Bokkelen, Hammond, Ind., for defendant.
On September 30, 1975 a Special Grand Jury was empaneled pursuant to the order of this Court en banc upon the written request of Assistant Attorney General Richard L. Thornburgh, head of the Criminal Division for the Department of Justice. The order empaneling said Special Grand Jury is as follows:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA IN THE MATTER OF | THE CONVENING OF | A SPECIAL GRAND > JURY FOR THE | NORTHERN DISTRICT | OF INDIANA. |
Assistant Attorney General Richard L. Thornburgh, United States Department of Justice, having certified in writing to this court that in his judgment a special grand jury is necessary because of criminal activity in the Northern District of Indiana, and having requested that the special grand jury be summoned at the earliest possible date, and there being no other special grand jury (pursuant to Title 18, Section 3331) now serving,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Jury Commissioner in each place of holding court shall immediately draw the names of the designated number of prospective grand jurors listed below from the Qualified Jury Wheel of the respective Division therein:
HAMMOND DIVISION ....................... 21
FORT WAYNE DIVISION .................... 21
SOUTH BEND DIVISION .................... 25
HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE .......... 8
Thereafter, the Clerk, or his Deputy, and the Jury Commissioner of the Hammond Division, shall cause the names so drawn to be pooled to make up the grand jury array, and shall issue a summons to each of said persons to appear in the United States Courtroom at Hammond, Indiana, on Tuesday, September 30, 1975, at 10:00 A.M. (prevailing Hammond time), to serve as grand jurors for a term of eighteen months or until discharged pursuant to Title 18, Section 3331.
(s) Jesse E. Eschbach Chief Judge (s) Allen Sharp Judge (s) Robert A. Grant Judge ENTER: 8/29/75
On December 8, 1975 an indictment was returned in open court by the Special Grand Jury charging the defendant, Billy Joe Handley, together with six co-defendants in a twenty count indictment charging violations of Section 2314, Title 18 of the United States Code, i. e., the interstate transportation of forged securities.
The empanelment of a Special Grand Jury pursuant to Section 3331, Title 18 of the United States Code, had been requested by the office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana to aid in the investigation and prosecution of pervasive organized criminal activity, racketeering and political corruption in Lake County, Indiana. The Government concedes that neither the defendant Handley nor any of his co-defendants were targets of the Special Grand Jury investigation at the time of its empanelment. The Government further concedes that the defendant Handley was not a specific object of its efforts to gain a Special Grand Jury in this District, nor was he a target of the Strike Force Attorney, who have been assisting the office of the United States Attorney in its investigation to date.
The indictment in the instant case was a superseding one, replacing a single-count information under Hammond Criminal No. H Cr 75-195, which was scheduled for trial for December 10, 1975. Counsel for the defendant was made aware of the Government's intention to seek a twenty count indictment; defense counsel had previously indicated, in fact, that the defendant would not waive his constitutional right to presentment to a grand jury. While it is true as the defendant asserts that a regular grand jury empaneled pursuant to Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure was then empaneled and sitting in the Hammond Division, it was not available for presentment of indictments at the time the instant case was presented to the Special Grand Jury on December 7, 1975. The regular Grand Jury which was drawn from the area in the entire Northern District of Indiana had met prior to the date of this indictment on November 12 through 14, 1975. While it had been scheduled originally to meet on December 2, 3 and 4, its session had been cancelled because of the inability of the United States Attorney's office to adequately prepare sufficient cases for its review and consideration because of the overburdening workload upon the small staff in the North District of Indiana. (The office of the United States Attorney has a staff of eight Assistant United States Attorneys in the three Federal Court buildings in the Northern District and handles in excess of four hundred criminal cases each year; the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois has a staff of seventy-four Assistant United States Attorneys, plus an undetermined number of paralegal assistants primarily staffing the offices in Chicago, and handles slightly more than eight hundred criminal cases each year.) The regular Grand Jury did not reconvene for its final session until the 19th of January, 1976. The Government contends in order to avoid successive prosecutions for offenses of the same character constituting part of a common scheme and plan which could otherwise be joined under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, it was necessary to present the indictment to the only Grand Jury then sitting for business.
The argument of the defendant, Handley, appears to be a twofold one: first, that the Special Grand Jury was without jurisdiction to investigate and return indictments for offenses not connected with organized crime or political corruption; secondly, that the defendant, Handley, could not be a target of the Special Grand Jury without some showing that he was an expressed target of the United States Attorney's Office when it sought empanelment of the Special Grand Jury. This attack upon the Special Grand Jury appears unique and one of first impression, but is merely a continuation of the attacks upon a Special Grand Jury constituted under 18 U.S.C., § 3331. See, e. g. Wax v. Motley, 510 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1975) (); United States v. Lawson, 507 F.2d 433 (7th Cir. 1974) (); Korman v. United States, 486 F.2d 926 (7th Cir. 1973) (); United States ex rel. Womack v. United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, 348 F.Supp. 1331 (N.D.Ill.1972) (); In re Lopreato, 511 F.2d 1150 (1st Cir. 1975) (); In re Report and Recommendation of June 5, 1972 Grand Jury, 370 F.Supp. 1219 (D.C.C.1974) (Sirica, C. J.) (issuance of Special Grand Jury Report); In re Reno, 331 F.Supp. 507 (E.D.Mich. 1971) (). The Government on the other hand has attempted to invoke the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3331 et seq., to validate the actions of regular Grand Juries whose powers have lapsed by the passing of time. See, e. g., United States v. Fein, 370 F.Supp. 466 (E.D.N.Y.1974) aff'd, 504 F.2d 1170 (2d Cir. 1974); United States v. Gurney, 393 F.Supp. 688 (M.D.Fla. 1974).
A Special Grand Jury was the creation of a Congress interested in new weapons to combat organized crime and was endowed with certain unique powers to effect that end. Under Section 3331(b) a Special Grand Jury can apply on its own for an extension of its term and may continue to act while the application is pending before the Court; pursuant to Section 3333, the Special Grand Jury can submit reports in matters not resulting in indictments. However, there is nothing in the statute or the legislative history concerning the Organized Crime Act of 1970 placing any restriction or limit upon the powers of a Special Grand Jury to function.
Both the order empaneling the Special Grand Jury and the statute upon which it was based establish a broad and general mandate to the Grand Jury for criminal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wehr v. Burroughs Corp.
... ... WEHR ... The BURROUGHS CORPORATION ... Civ. A. No. 76-581 ... United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania ... June 17, 1977.438 F. Supp ... ...
-
Kinney Shoe Corp. v. Vorhes
... ... Wagner et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees ... No. 75-2242 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... Ninth Circuit ... Oct. 25, 1977 ... ...
-
U.S. v. Koliboski, 83-1634
...H.R.Rep. No. 91-1549, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 39, reprinted in 1970 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 4007, 4014, quoted in United States v. Handley, 407 F.Supp. 911, 914 (N.D.Ind.1976). General needs of a district include investigation into all types of criminal activities. The special grand jury here......