United States v. West Coast News Company, Crim. No. 6615.
Decision Date | 19 April 1963 |
Docket Number | Crim. No. 6615. |
Citation | 216 F. Supp. 911 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. WEST COAST NEWS COMPANY, Inc., a California corporation, Sanford E. Aday and Wallace De Ortega Maxey, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
George E. Hill, Dist. Atty., Robert G. Quinn, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Grand Rapids, Mich., Marshall Tamor Golding, Crim. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Stanley Fleishman, Hollywood, Cal., Richard F. VanderVeen and George R. Cook, Grand Rapids, Mich., for defendants.
This case, in which the United States, by a Grand Jury Indictment, charged the defendants in nineteen counts with violating Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1461 and 1462, using the mails and a common carrier for delivery of obscene books, is challenged by defendants through six motions.1
The indictment was found in the district of alleged distribution and delivery of the books, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a).
The United States filed a motion to strike defendants' motion to dismiss the indictment because of the alleged invalidity of the Grand Jury, March 12, 1963. The Government's motion is based on the issue of timeliness of challenges to the array and the indictment. Agnew v. United States, 165 U.S. 36, 17 S.Ct. 235, 41 L.Ed. 624.
Briefs were filed on all motions, excepting the Government's motion to strike.
Arguments on all motions were presented to the court through most of March 13, 1963. Testimony in support of defendants' position challenging the Grand Jury was presented through the balance of the 13th, and on the 14th and 15th of March. Testimony was taken subject to the court's reservation concerning the effect of the Agnew case, supra, and in order to accommodate defendants' attorney, Mr. Fleishman, who had traveled in from California to present defendants' position.
Senior Judge Raymond W. Starr, then chief judge, filed an opinion and denied the first motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of California, on February 13, 1962, D.C., 30 F.R.D. 13.
At a proceeding before Judge Raymond W. Starr, at Grand Rapids, Michigan, on August 15, 1960, George R. Cook, an attorney from Grand Rapids, and Stanley Fleishman, an attorney from Hollywood, California, appeared on behalf of the defendants.
Richard F. VanderVeen and George R. Cook filed formal appearance for the defendants on August 18, 1960.
At the August 15, 1960 proceeding, the court directed that if the Government or the defendants intended to file any further motions in this action, they should be filed and served on or before September 30, 1960.
The Grand Jury which returned an indictment in this case was impaneled on September 16, 1959, and the indictment was returned May 24, 1960.
During pendency of proceedings before the Grand Jury. Mr. Stanley Fleishman, one of the attorneys for the defendants, requested that he be allowed to appear before the Grand Jury to argue defendants' innocence and the constitutionally protected nature of the books in question. The District Attorney permitted Mr. Fleishman to send a letter to the Grand Jury, then in session, stating why, in his opinion, no indictment should be returned in this case.
Mr. Fleishman sent Grand Jury Exhibit No. 39, a letter dated April 19, 1960, addressed to the foreman of the Grand Jury and to the Grand Jury, together with a copy of a letter from the firm of Brock, Fleishman and Rykoff, dated December 18, 1958, signed by Mr. Fleishman. This latter letter was an opinion of Mr. Fleishman to Saber Books and Fabian Books, 2919 Belmont Avenue, Fresno, California, in which he advised that certain named books were constitutionally protected expressions, and as such, freely distributable.
Mr. Fleishman quoted extensively from Chief Judge Yankwich's opinion in a Southern District of California case, which involved an obscenity question. This, Mr. Fleishman told the Grand Jury, was a reasonably fair statement of the law on the question of obscenity.
Thus, the defendants were well aware, over a month before return of the indictment, of the exact nature and extent of the charges which the Grand Jury was considering.
At that time the same factual information upon which defendants predicated the challenge to the array was "open and available" to them, as well as it was on March 27, 1962.
Later, in oral arguments before the court on August 15, 1960, Mr. Fleishman said:
Defendants' first motion in this case was to transfer the action to the Southern District of California. Had the transfer been granted, surely the challenge of an allegedly unlawfully convened Grand Jury and other claimed Grand Jury irregularities would never have been made.
On February 13, 1962, Judge Starr filed his opinion denying defendants' motion to transfer the action to California.
The defendants were arraigned on March 2, 1962.2 At that time, the following conversation took place:
The motion was directed to all pretrial motions and not to all pre-arraignment motions. Motions to the competency of the Grand Jury or to the sufficiency of the indictment or information, are pre-arraignment motions. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 12(b) (3).
Defendants delayed filing the motion to dismiss the indictment on their challenge to the array until March 27, 1962, one year, ten months and three days after the return of the indictment against them, and one year, eleven months and eight days after defendants' counsel, Mr. Fleishman's specially privileged letter to the Grand Jury.
In the case of Agnew v. United States, 165 U.S. 36, 44, 17 S.Ct. 235, 238, 41 L.Ed. 624, 627, Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, and said:
"The plea does not allege want of knowledge of threatened prosecution on the part of the defendant, nor want of opportunity to present his objection earlier, nor assign any ground why exception was not taken or objection made before; and, moreover, the plea is fatally defective in that, although it is stated that the drawing `tended to his injury and prejudice,' no grounds whatever are assigned for such a conclusion, nor does the record exhibit any such." (Emphasis supplied.)
Defendants' motion in this case is without either plea or evidence that they had no opportunity to object before the bill was found, and certainly they cannot plead lack of knowledge of threatened prosecution.
In Cook v. United States, 4 F.2d 517 (CCA, 5th 1925), Circuit Judge Walker said at Page 518:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Luros
...The defendants' affidavit in support of their motion does not state that they lack this information. See United States v. West Coast News Company, 216 F. Supp. 911 (W.D.Mich.1963). Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 ask for the names of defendants who were present at certain places and times,......
-
United States v. West Coast News Company
...motion for a bill of particulars, motion for renewal and reargument of the motion to transfer, and motion to reduce bond, reported at 216 F.Supp. 911 (1963). A writ of mandamus against this court was denied by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 318 F.2d 588. Motion for leave to fi......
-
United States v. West Coast News Company, 15792-15795.
...Many of these were discussed adequately and at length in opinions of the District Judge, published as United States v. West Coast News Company, 216 F.Supp. 911 (W.D.Mich.1963) and United States v. West Coast News Company, 228 F.Supp. 171 (W.D.Mich.1964). These opinions bring together variou......
-
U.S. v. Bowdoin
...Inc., 457 F.Supp. 661, 663–64 (W.D.Ky.1978) (denying transfer request based on defendant's hypertension); United States v. West Coast News Co., 216 F.Supp. 911, 923 (W.D.Mich.1963) (denying transfer request based on the failing health of one defendant; he suffered a heart occlusion during p......