United States v. Pyke
| Decision Date | 28 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 67 Cr. 51.,67 Cr. 51. |
| Citation | 271 F. Supp. 359 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Arnold PYKE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., for Southern Dist. of New York, by Roger J. Hawke, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, for the United States.
Jacob P. Lefkowitz, New York City, for defendant.
Defendant was indicted on January 19, 1967 and entered a plea of "Not Guilty" on January 30, 1967. At the defendant's request, after the Government had asked for an earlier date, his time for filing motions was extended to February 20, 1967. The defendant failed to file his motions on February 20, and on February 21, 1967 this Court denied defense counsel's request for two weeks to complete the preparation of motions. The present motions for a bill of particulars under Rule 7(f), F.R.Crim.P., and for various statements and documents under Rule 16, F.R.Crim.P., were made returnable on June 19, 1967.
Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as recently amended, both motions were required to be made within 10 days after arraignment unless the defendant came forward with reasons sufficiently meritorious to lead the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, to permit a later filing. Rules 7(f) and 16(f), F.R.Crim.P. Without requesting such permission of the Court or offering any reasons why such permission should be granted, the defendant in this case has filed his motions more than three months after the date originally set by the Court for the trial of the case and made them returnable more than four months thereafter. To consider the motions under such circumstances would make a mockery of the 10-day requirement and reduce it to a dead letter, which was neither suggested nor implied when the Rules were recently amended. Such disregard for the Rules will not be tolerated. United States v. Miller, 217 F. Supp. 760 (E.D.Pa.1963); United States v. Taylor, 25 F.R.D. 225 (E.D.N.Y.1961), reversed on other grounds as to one of these cases, United States v. Evans, 312 F.2d 556 (2d Cir. 1963); United States v. Sterling, 122 F.Supp. 81 (D.Pa.1954).
Accordingly, the motions are denied for untimeliness.
So ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Reyes, 67 Cr. 438.
...jury minutes is denied for the foregoing reasons and for the additional reason that the motion was not timely made. United States v. Pyke, 271 F. Supp. 359 (S.D.N.Y.1967); Rule 16(f), Motion to Dismiss Indictment on Ground 21 U.S.C. § 176a is Unconstitutional In the second motion filed by B......
-
U.S. v. McKay, 99 CR 0308(ADS).
...circumstances to indicate good cause for extending the 10-day limit of Rule 7(f), McKay's motion is denied as untimely. U.S. v. Pyke, 271 F.Supp. 359 (S.D.N.Y.1967); U.S. v. Taylor, 25 F.R.D. 225 (E.D.N.Y. Regardless of the timeliness of the motion, on the merits, the Court finds that the i......