United States v. Oley, 36966.
| Citation | 21 F. Supp. 281 |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 36966.,36966. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. OLEY (two cases). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
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.
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 conspiring so to do.
It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Smyth
...were made were not 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. "The grand jur......
-
United States v. Ben Grunstein & Sons Company
...265 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. 4 U. S. v. Rose, 3 Cir., 1954, 215 F.2d 617......
-
United States v. American Medical Ass'n
...irregularities induced the finding. 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 a......
-
United States v. White
...F. 976, 978, U. S. v. Silverthorne, D.C.W. D.N.Y.1920, 265 F. 853, or presented in violation of constitutional rights, U. S. v. Oley, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1937, 21 F.Supp. 281, or the result of fraud, corruption, or caprice. U. S. v. Gouled, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1918, 253 F. This court in U. S. v. National W......