United States v. Miller, Crim. No. 14413.
| Decision Date | 19 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 14413. |
| Citation | 210 F. Supp. 716 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. David Sidney MILLER et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Woodrow Seals, U. S. Atty., and Morton L. Susman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Texas, for plaintiff.
Dixie & Schulman (Chris Dixie), Houston, Tex., for defendants.
This case grows out of a nineteen-count indictment charging violations of the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341. The defendants have now made three motions: (1) for a Bill of Particulars; (2) To Dismiss the Indictment or to Strike Clauses or Counts; (3) To Require the Government to Designate Collateral Transactions. For the reasons set out below all three motions will be denied.
The essence of the scheme as alleged is eight misrepresentations, set out in the first paragraph of Count One, and the nondisclosure of three material facts, set out in paragraph 2 of Count Seven. The motion for bill of particulars asks that the government reveal (a) whether each misrepresentation was oral or written; (b) who made each misrepresentation and/or nondisclosure and to whom. The defendants claim, on the basis of an affidavit by Warren J. Adams, Director of the Texas School of Practical Nursing, that the school's business is so substantial and its records so voluminous that they will not be able to prepare their defense without the requested information. In passing on a request for a bill of particulars the court must balance the needs of the defendant against the government's right not to disclose its witnesses, evidence or legal theories.1 In striking the appropriate balance in the case at bar the following factors are important: the indictment is full and complete and there is no question as to the nature of the offense charged; it sets out all the misrepresentations and nondisclosures on which the government relies; it gives the names of nine of the school's former students to whom the misrepresentations and/or nondisclosures were made, which should assist the defendants in segregating the information in their files pertinent to their defense; the information requested is or should be in the possession of the defendants.2 In light of all these factors this court does not feel that it would be a proper exercise of its discretion to allow the motion for bill of particulars.3 The foregoing discussion also supplies the reasons for the denial of the motion for designation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Thevis
...be balanced against the government's general right to prevent disclosure of its evidence and legal theories. See, United States v. Miller, 210 F.Supp. 716 (S.D.Tex.1962). Furthermore, the Court recognizes the traditional concern of the government that criminal discovery would facilitate per......
-
United States v. Piper
...922, 83 S.Ct. 289, 9 L.Ed.2d 230 (1962); Demetree v. United States (5 Cir. 1955) 207 F.2d 892 rev. other grounds; United States v. Miller (E.D. Tex.1962) 210 F.Supp. 716; Johnson v. United States (5 Cir. 1953) 207 F.2d 314, cert. den. 347 U.S. 938, 74 S.Ct. 632, 98 L.Ed. 1087 (1954). Names ......
-
U.S. v. Keane
...v. Simon, 425 F.2d 796, 806-08 (2d Cir. 1969), Cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1006, 90 S.Ct. 1235, 25 L.Ed.2d 420 (1970); United States v. Miller, 210 F.Supp. 716 (S.D.Tex.1962).25 The use of nominees and land trusts are not in and of themselves illegal but must be viewed within the total factual c......
-
United States v. Rogers
...general right to prevent disclosure of its evidence and legal theories." Thevis, 474 F.Supp. 117, 124; see also United States v. Miller, 210 F.Supp. 716 (S.D.Tex.1962). If the competing interests of the defense and the government are closely balanced, the interests of the defendant in discl......