United States v. Kazonis, Crim. No. 74-238-S.
| Decision Date | 24 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 74-238-S. |
| Citation | 391 F. Supp. 804 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. William KAZONIS et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Martin Boudreau, Sp. Atty., Strike Force, Dept. of Justice, for plaintiff.
Morris M. Goldings, Joseph J. Balliro, Boston, Mass., Robert V. Mulkern, Worcester, Mass., Albert L. Hutton, Boston, Mass., for defendants.
The defendants have moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that Special Attorney Joel Friedman, who presented this case to the Grand Jury, was not an authorized person. Mr. Friedman was appointed by Assistant Attorney General Henry Petersen, then Chief of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. The letter of appointment was in precisely the same form of the letter of appointment which was the subject of Judge Werker's opinion in United States v. Crispino, 392 F.Supp. 764 (S.D.N.Y., 1975), the subject of Judge Pollack's opinion in United States v. Brown, 389 F.Supp. 959 (S.D.N.Y., 1975), the subject of Judge Frankel's opinion in United States v. Jacobson (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 1975), and the subject of Judge Dooling's opinion in In re Jerry Langella (E.D.N.Y., February 27, 1975), except that Mr. Friedman's letter refers to the District of Massachusetts rather than the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.
All of the above cited opinions reject the defendants' contention that the appointment of special attorneys by Mr. Petersen was invalid. The defendants rely on United States v. Crispino, however, for the proposition that the letter of appointment was not sufficiently specific within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 515(a). All of the other cases cited above reject the result reached in Crispino, and sustain the validity of an indictment returned in the same manner as in the present case. I adopt the views so ably set forth in those opinions, and seen no need to repeat them here.
All of the cited opinions turn on a question of statutory construction. Even if Judge Werker is correct in his construction and application of 28 U.S.C. § 515(a) as expounded in Crispino, it does not necessarily follow that the indictment should be dismissed. It was a duly convened grand jury, after all, that returned the indictment, not Special Attorney Friedman. Not every collateral irregularity voids its return. May v. United States, 236 F. 495, 500 (8 Cir. 1916). Only such irregularities as infect the proceedings of the grand jury, or deprive the defendants of a fundamental right or violate the paramount policy of the United States (e. g., use of illegal wire-taps) should have that effect.
It is an accepted principle of the criminal law that the presence of an "unauthorized person" before a grand jury voids an indictment. This is not a mindless incantation, however, and relates to two extremely pragmatic considerations:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Computer Sciences Corp.
...435 F.Supp. 610, 618 (N.D.Okl.1977); United States v. Braniff Airways, Inc., 428 F.Supp. 579 (W.D.Tex.1977); United States v. Kazonis, 391 F.Supp. 804, 805 (D.Mass.1975); United States v. Bowdach, 324 F.Supp. 123, 124 (S.D.Fla.1971); United States v. Borys, 169 F.Supp. 366 (D.Alaska 1959); ......
-
Com. v. Conefrey
...Mass. 65, 69, 248 N.E.2d 273 (1969); Commonwealth v. Favulli, supra 352 Mass. at 106, 224 N.E.2d 422. See also United States v. Kazonis, 391 F.Supp. 804, 805-806 (D.Mass.1975), aff'd, 530 F.2d 962 (1st Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826, 97 S.Ct. 80, 50 L.Ed.2d 88 The victim-witness assi......
-
U.S. v. Computer Sciences Corp.
...period of his presence. We hold that the interruption did not invalidate the proceedings or the indictment."). See United States v. Kazonis, 391 F.Supp. 804, 805 (D.Mass.1975), aff'd without opinion, 530 F.2d 962 (1st Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826, 97 S.Ct. 80, 50 L.Ed.2d 88 The ca......
-
U.S. v. Morrison
...have likewise turned aside this claim. See, e.g., In re Patriarca, 396 F.Supp. 859, 865--68, 871 (D.R.I.1975); United States v. Kazonis, 391 F.Supp. 804 (D.Mass.1975); see also United States v. Weiner, 392 F.Supp. 81 (N.D.Ill.1975). Essentially § 515(a), promulgated by Congress in 1906 (34 ......