United States v. Skurla, Cr. No. 14111-14114
| Citation | 126 F. Supp. 711 |
| Decision Date | 02 December 1954 |
| Docket Number | 14149.,14106-14110,14116,Cr. No. 14111-14114,14148 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Andrew SKURLA, et al. UNITED STATES of America v. George CAVADA and John J. Walker. UNITED STATES of America v. Patsy Dominic GRILLO, et al. UNITED STATES of America v. Mike F. SICILLA, et al. UNITED STATES of America v. Althronia BROWN, et al. UNITED STATES of America v. William VIOLA. UNITED STATES of America v. Augustus VANCE, et al. UNITED STATES of America v. Paul THOMAS, Jr. UNITED STATES of America v. Alfred E. RILEY, et al. UNITED STATES of America v. Sanders Sam WILLIS, Sr., and Betty Louise Holbrook. UNITED STATES of America v. William VIOLA and Damon Jenkins. UNITED STATES of America v. Abner Theodore KNIGHT. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
John W. McIlvaine, U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.
Robert A. Jarvis, Robert E. Kline, Louis C. Glasso, Pittsburgh, Pa., Paul R. McCormick, Greensburg, Pa., for defendants.
In connection with divers indictments returned by the grand jury on March 4, 1954, commonly known as the vote fraud indictments, numerous motions have been filed before this court.
For purposes of clarity the indictments have been classified in specific categories for disposition of the issues presented.
The following opinions are herein reported:
I. Motion to produce records of the grand jury.
II. Motions to quash indictments:
(a) Conspiracy to intimidate indictments, 126 F.Supp. 713.
(b) Bribery indictments, 126 F.Supp. 718.
(c) Perjury indictment, 126 F.Supp. 720.
* * * * * *
Motion to Produce Records of the Grand Jury.
This is a motion by defendants to require the United States Attorney to produce records of the grand jury for inspection by this court.
The grand jury returned the above indictments alleging a conspiracy to intimidate voters in the November 4, 1952 elections in Pennsylvania, 18 U.S.C. § 241.
Defendants contend that a witness appeared before the grand jury strongly identified with a self-styled reform movement in the area where the alleged intimidations occurred, and that her testimony, which must necessarily have been based upon hearsay, was a contributing factor to these indictments.
They further advance the thesis that the sole purpose of this witness' appearance was to harangue, browbeat or otherwise exert undue influence upon the grand jurors and subvert the purpose of their convening.
Pursuant to the view that this testimony, of an incompetent and inadmissible nature, could have materially swayed the jurors in their deliberations, defendants insist that the court should review the entire proceedings before the grand jury and determine what part, if any, said testimony played in instigating the indictments, so that the court might be materially assisted in evaluating the divers petitions for dismissal.
Appearing before the court, the United States Attorney admitted the participation of the witness in question, but categorically asserted that said testimony represented a mere fragment of the record, and by no stretch of the imagination could have been responsible for producing the indictments.
Indeed, the right is well within the discretionary power of this court to review the testimony and minutes of a grand jury, but the court's discretion in that regard will not be exercised except when compelled by overwhelming public interest. Metzler v. United States, 9 Cir., 64 F.2d 203; United States v. Alper, 2 Cir., 156 F.2d 222; United States v. Crolich, D.C., 101 F.Supp. 782; In re Bullock, D.C., 103 F.Supp. 639; 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1326, p. 956; United States v. Herzig, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 26 F.2d 487.
This power must be exercised in rare instances based upon proof and not upon mere allegation made upon information and belief. Such an allegation could be made by any defendant, imposing upon the court the burden of examining every proceeding before the grand jury, thus resulting in the court both indicting and trying all criminals.
As against the granting of this motion is the historic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Melekh, 60 Cr. 529.
...Term Grand Jury, 7 Cir., 1956, 239 F.2d 263; Goodman v. United States, 9 Cir., 1939, 108 F.2d 516, 127 A.L.R. 265; United States v. Skurla, D.C.W.D.Pa.1954, 126 F.Supp. 711; United States v. Central Supply Ass'n, D.C.N.D.Ohio 1940, 34 F.Supp. 241; United States v. Smyth, D.C.N.D.Cal. 1952, ......
-
Petition of Jessup
...proceedings overrode and outweighed any public interest in disclosure. State v. Roberts, 1910, 2 Boyce 140, 78 A. 305; United States v. Skurla, D.C., 126 F.Supp. 711; United States v. Central Supply Ass'n, D.C., 34 F.Supp. 241; United States v. American Medical Ass'n, D.C., 26 F.Supp. 429; ......
-
Special February 1971 Grand Jury v. Conlisk, 73-1207.
...interest to override the policy of shielding the grand jury from public scrutiny. Accord, In re Bullock, supra; Cf., United States v. Skurla, 126 F.Supp. 711 (D.C.Pa.1954); United States v. Smyth, 104 F.Supp. 279 (D.C.Cal.1952). Moreover, the purpose of rule 6(e) is to facilitate efficient ......