United States v. Oley, No. 36966.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
Citation21 F. Supp. 281
Docket NumberNo. 36966.
PartiesUNITED STATES v. OLEY (two cases).
Decision Date01 December 1937

21 F. Supp. 281

UNITED STATES
v.
OLEY (two cases).

No. 36966.

District Court, E. D. New York.

December 1, 1937.


Leo J. Hickey, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Albert Lyons, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for the United States.

Joseph G. M. Browne, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for defendants.

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

These are two motions. The first one is "for an order (1) granting to the defendants an inspection of the minutes of the grand jury which found the indictment herein against said defendants; (2) that plaintiff furnish defendants with a list of the names of the witnesses who testified before the grand jury, and also a list of the names of the witnesses the plaintiff will call upon the trial herein; (3) that plaintiff furnish the defendants with a bill of particulars."

The court has power in its sound discretion to grant a motion for the inspection of grand jury minutes. This discretion should be rarely exercised. A very good reason must be shown to obtain that relief. It must be affirmatively proven by the defendants that the only evidence presented to the grand jury was incompetent or illegal, or that the evidence was presented in violation of the constitutional rights of the defendants, or that the indictment was obtained as a result of corruption, fraud, or caprice. If any incompetent or illegal evidence were presented to the grand jury and there were other evidence to sustain the indictment, the indictment would be sufficient. United States v. Perlman (D.C.) 247 F. 158; United States v. Gouled (D.C.) 253 F. 242; United States v. Lydecker (D.C.) 275 F. 976; and United States v. Herzig (D.C.) 26 F.2d 487.

An affidavit has been submitted by the Assistant United States Attorney stating that this case was presented to the grand jury on February 11 and February 16, 1937,

and at that time the official stenographer of the grand jury was not present and there was no other stenographer present, and that accordingly there is no record of the testimony of the witnesses before the grand jury

There is no provision in law requiring the United States Attorney to furnish the defendants with a list of the names of the witnesses who testified before the grand jury. Certainly, the government is under no obligation to disclose its evidence.

The husbands of the defendants were indicted in the Northern District of New York. Defendants are charged with harboring their husbands as fugitives from justice and with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • United States v. Smyth, No. 33092-33095.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • February 20, 1952
    ...also personally examined, * * *." Hope v. People, 83 N.Y. 418, 423, 38 Am.Rep. 460. 74 Orfield, 162; United States v. Oley, D.C., 21 F.Supp. 281; Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 15 S.Ct. 586, 39 L.Ed. 657; United States v. Silverthorne, D.C., 265 F. 853. "The grand jury is......
  • United States v. Ben Grunstein & Sons Company, Civ. A. No. 888-51.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • January 17, 1956
    ...F. 853; U. S. v. Morse, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1922, 292 F. 273; U. S. v. Herzig, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1928, 26 F.2d 487; U. S. v. Oley, D.C.E.D. N.Y.1937, 21 F.Supp. 281; Shushan v. U. S., 5 Cir., 1941, 117 F.2d 110; U. S. v. Papaioanu, D.C.D.Del.1950, 10 F.R.D. 517. 4 U. S. v. Rose, 3 Cir., 1954, 215 F.2d 61......
  • United States v. American Medical Ass'n, No. 63221.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • January 31, 1939
    ...the finding. 26 F. Supp. 431 United States v. Gouled, supra; Laska v. United States, 10 Cir., 82 F.2d 682; United States v. Oley, D.C., 21 F.Supp. 281. That is conceded by government counsel. But it is a power sparingly used; justified only where by proper verified pleading a clear and posi......
  • United States v. Skurla, Cr. No. 14111-14114
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • December 2, 1954
    ...if it were unexplained that a crime has been committed. United States v. Smyth, D.C., 104 F.Supp. 283; United States v. Oley, D.C., 21 F.Supp. 281; Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 15 S.Ct. 586, 39 L.Ed. 657; United States v. Silverthorne, D.C., 265 F. 853. Except in extreme instance......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • United States v. Smyth, No. 33092-33095.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • February 20, 1952
    ...also personally examined, * * *." Hope v. People, 83 N.Y. 418, 423, 38 Am.Rep. 460. 74 Orfield, 162; United States v. Oley, D.C., 21 F.Supp. 281; Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 15 S.Ct. 586, 39 L.Ed. 657; United States v. Silverthorne, D.C., 265 F. 853. "The grand jury is......
  • United States v. Ben Grunstein & Sons Company, Civ. A. No. 888-51.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • January 17, 1956
    ...F. 853; U. S. v. Morse, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1922, 292 F. 273; U. S. v. Herzig, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1928, 26 F.2d 487; U. S. v. Oley, D.C.E.D. N.Y.1937, 21 F.Supp. 281; Shushan v. U. S., 5 Cir., 1941, 117 F.2d 110; U. S. v. Papaioanu, D.C.D.Del.1950, 10 F.R.D. 517. 4 U. S. v. Rose, 3 Cir., 1954, 215 F.2d 61......
  • United States v. American Medical Ass'n, No. 63221.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • January 31, 1939
    ...the finding. 26 F. Supp. 431 United States v. Gouled, supra; Laska v. United States, 10 Cir., 82 F.2d 682; United States v. Oley, D.C., 21 F.Supp. 281. That is conceded by government counsel. But it is a power sparingly used; justified only where by proper verified pleading a clear and posi......
  • United States v. Skurla, Cr. No. 14111-14114
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • December 2, 1954
    ...if it were unexplained that a crime has been committed. United States v. Smyth, D.C., 104 F.Supp. 283; United States v. Oley, D.C., 21 F.Supp. 281; Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 15 S.Ct. 586, 39 L.Ed. 657; United States v. Silverthorne, D.C., 265 F. 853. Except in extreme instance......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT