United States v. Skurla, Cr. No. 14111-14114

Citation126 F. Supp. 713
Decision Date02 December 1954
Docket NumberCr. No. 14111-14114,14148.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. Andrew SKURLA, et al., George Cavada, et al., Patsy Dominic Grillo, et al., Mike F. Sicilia, et al., and Althronia Brown, et al.
CourtU.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.

GOURLEY, Chief Judge.

This matter comes before the court on motions to dismiss the indictments and/or suppress the evidence, and for bill of particulars.

The defendants were indicted March 4, 1954 for violation of Section 241 of Title 18 of the United States Code. This section reads in part:

"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; * * *." (Penal clause.)

The indictments recite that there was a general election in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on November 4, 1952, at which the voters voted on a United States Senator, members of Congress and other officials.

Within this Western District of Pennsylvania, which includes the Twenty-first and Twenty-sixth Congressional Districts, it is alleged that the divers parties indicted conspired with each other and with others to injure and oppress citizens of the United States and particularly their right of suffrage.

Several overt acts are alleged. The first is that the defendants cast and caused to be cast false, forged, illegal and fictitious votes, thereby diluting and destroying the value of votes legally cast.

The next overt act alleged is that the defendants caused an incorrect tally of the votes cast to be returned.

And the other overt act alleged is that the defendants did procure persons not qualified to vote to impersonate lawful voters and to cast illegal votes in said precinct.

All the defendants have been arraigned and all plead not guilty.

Motion to Suppress the Evidence.

In pursuance to a subpoena issued out of the District Court on behalf of the United States Attorney on July 31, 1953, directed to the Registration Bureau of Fayette County, the following records for the First, Second, Third and Fourth Wards of Brownsville and for the Sixth District of Luzerne Township, Fayette County, were produced:

(a) Voters' certificates for November 4, 1952 general election.

(b) Duplicate return sheets.

(c) Record of assisted voters.

(d) Elector officers oath.

(e) Numbered list of voters.

(f) Record of challenged votes.

Subsequently upon the stipulation and agreement between the United States Attorney and counsel for the County Commissioners that the documents may be vital to both the government and any one who may be indicted, they were to be impounded with the United States Marshal except when they were being used or examined by the grand jury then in session.

Because it is provided in the Pennsylvania Election Code of 1937, 25 Pa.P.S. § 2649, that election records need be preserved only for a period of eleven months from the date of the election and shall be preserved for a greater period when the County Board has been notified by a Judge of a court of record to preserve said records for a longer period of time, it became necessary for the District Court of the United States to enter an appropriate Order so that authorization would continue to exist for the United States Marshal to retain the custody and control of said records. Accordingly, the following Order was entered by the District Court at Miscellaneous No. 1794:

"Order
"And Now, this 27 day of October, 1953, It Is Ordered and Directed that all of the documents, records and ballot boxes heretofore produced by the authorities of Fayette and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania, and which are not in the possession of the United States Marshal for the Western District of Pennsylvania, by virtue of a stipulation hereinbefore referred to, are hereby impounded in the care and custody of John E. Sloan, United States Marshal, who is to keep and preserve said records, provided however, that no person is to have access to said records until further order of this court, which will be granted for cause shown if legal authority exists for the purposes desired by the person or persons who make application for authority to inspect said records.

"Wallace S. Gourley, CDJ "Chief District Judge "Approved "Rabe F. Marsh, D. J "Joseph P. Willson, D.J."

Subsequent to the entry of the aforesaid Order, the United States Attorney presented the following motion for permission to examine impounded evidence, the substance of which was as follows:

"That for the proper and complete investigation of alleged federal crimes in connection with the general election of November 4, 1952, it will be necessary to make technical tests and examinations in the Crime Laboratory of the F.B.I. at Washington, D. C., and on the documents and ballots so impounded.
"That these documents and ballots can be returned to the marshal unaltered, uninjured and unchanged in any respect (except for the seal on the ballot boxes) and in ample time for any defendant or defendants to prepare for trial."

On November 10, 1953, my associate, Judge Joseph P. Willson, entered an Order granting the aforesaid motion of the United States Attorney and directed the United States Marshal to deliver the records to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for crime laboratory examination in Washington, D. C.

Pursuant to said Order, the vote records were subsequently removed from the custody and control of the United States Marshal and were taken to the crime laboratory of the Federal Bureau of Investigation at Washington, D. C.

It is contended that the election documents and records so removed from the possession of the United States Marshal should be suppressed as evidence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • United States v. Mackey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • January 23, 2023
    ... ... on behalf of illiterate voters who thought they were ... receiving assistance in voting); United States v ... Skurla, 126 F.Supp. 713, 715 (W.D.P.A. 1954) ... (considering situation where conspirators forged false ... ballots, "caused an incorrect tally ... ...
  • TCF Film Corporation v. Gourley
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • January 22, 1957
    ...Steel Corp., D.C.W.D.Pa.1952, 108 F.Supp. 88, 89; United States v. Ginn, D.C.E.D. Pa.1954, 124 F.Supp. 658, 660; United States v. Skurla, D.C.W.D.Pa.1954, 126 F.Supp. 713, 716; Fried for Use of Berger Supply Co. v. Feola, D.C.W.D. Pa.1954, 129 F.Supp. 699, 701. 2 Appleton v. Smith, C.C.Ark.......
  • Petition of Jessup
    • United States
    • Delaware Superior Court
    • November 4, 1957
    ... ... as they were and are at common law, for, while in many other States the functioning of the Grand Jury has been circumscribed (see Note, 52 ... 1373; Ex Parte Savin, 131 U.S. 267, 9 S.Ct. 699, 33 L.Ed. 150; United States v. Hill, 1809, Fed. Case No. 15,364, 1 Brock, 156; People v ... 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 ... ...
  • Marmara v. Rawle
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • March 16, 1979
    ... ... We disagree ... [264 ... Pa.Super. 238] Pa.R.C.P. 126 states that "(t)he rules ... shall be liberally construed to secure the just, ... Fried v. Feola, 129 F.Supp. 699 ... (W.D.Pa.1954); U. S. v. Skurla, 126 F.Supp. 713 ... (W.D.Pa.1954); See Stanley Appeal, 204 Pa.Super. 29, ... ...
  • 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