United States v. Suchman, Crim. No. 25875.

• Court: United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
• Writing for the Court: WINTER
• Citation: 206 F. Supp. 688
• Decision Date: 27 June 1962
• Docket Number: Crim. No. 25875.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Robert F. SUCHMAN.

206 F. Supp. 688

UNITED STATES of America
v.
Robert F. SUCHMAN.

Crim. No. 25875.

United States District Court D. Maryland.

June 27, 1962.

206 F. Supp. 689

Joseph D. Tydings, U. S. Atty., Arnold M. Weiner, Special Asst. to U. S. Atty., Stephen H. Sachs, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.

Maurice J. Walsh, Chicago, Ill., Thomas G. Gray, Baltimore, Md., for defendant.

WINTER, District Judge.

The defendant's "Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Insufficiency and Defects in Law," "Motion for Continuance of Trial to a Date Beyond the General Elections in November, 1962" and "Motion for Transfer of Proceedings to United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois" have been briefed, argued and submitted.

Notwithstanding a number of grounds alleged in support of the motion to dismiss, defendant argues only two: first, that the indictment constitutes "cryptic" pleading, so that the defendant is not fairly apprised of the crime with which he is charged and, second, that paragraph 4 of the indictment is legally insufficient in alleging that "defendant * * * caused to be placed in an authorized depository for mail matter a letter * * *," because it fails to allege that defendant "willfully caused, etc." In support of his first argument. defendant relies upon Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962); Parr v. United States, 363 U.S. 370, 80 S.Ct. 1171, 4 L.Ed.2d 1277 (1960); Kann v. United States, 323 U.S. 88, 65 S.Ct. 148, 89 L.Ed. 88 (1944); and United States v. Watson, 17 F. 145 (D.C.N.D.Miss.W.D.1883). Essentially, plaintiff argues that the failure to set forth the alleged "captious, deceptive, and misleading newspaper and direct mail solicitations," in haec verba, rather than to summarize them, as was done in the indictment, is the basic legal insufficiency.

The indictment summarizes for over two pages the pretenses and representations alleged to be false and fraudulent when made, and the manner in which it is claimed that they are false and fraudulent.

While the Kann and Parr cases, supra, were prosecutions under the mail fraud statute, they contain no discussion related to the argument made by defendant. The Russell case is quite different in its facts. It was a prosecution for the failure of a witness to answer a question before a congressional subcommittee, and it held that the omission in the indictment to allege in what regard the question was pertinent to the matter under investigation was fatal. True, the Russell case contains general language condemning generality in the language of indictments, but the purpose of specificity is stated to be not only for the protection of the defendant, but for the benefit of the prosecution, by making it possible for courts called upon to pass on the validity of convictions to bring an enlightened judgment to that task. Application of this rule to the indictment in question leads to the conclusion that it is fully subserved.

Although the Watson case, which was also not a mail fraud prosecution, states as a general principle that in criminal pleading a written document should be set out verbatim, the Court added (17 F., p. 150) "or in substance" (emphasis supplied). The indictment here complies. In any event, the Court is bound by Linden v. United States, 254 F.2d 560 (4 Cir., 1958). The Linden case was a prosecution for...