United States v. Winer, Crim. No. 70-66.
| Decision Date | 11 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 70-66. |
| Citation | 323 F. Supp. 604 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Harley Stanford WINER. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Louis C. Bechtle, U. S. Atty. of E.D. Pa., Richard R. Galli, Asst. U. S. Atty., for plaintiff.
Edward M. Kopanski, of Needleman, Needleman, Segal, Tabb & Eisman, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
Defendant Harley Stanford Winer has moved for dismissal of the indictment charging him with failure to report for induction into the Armed Forces of the United States in violation of the Selective Service Act, 50 App.U.S.C. § 462.
Defendant contends in substance that the local board order of November 17, 1967 to report is invalid, and further that the delay between the date of the offense which was November 27, 1967 and the date of the filing of the indictment, February 19, 1970, deprived him of his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.
Such motion of defendant was not made until October 13, 1970, following arraignment on September 27, 1970. Defendant was arrested in Wilmington, Delaware on March 2, 1970 and on the same date released after filing his own recognizance.
In brief, the indictment charges that on or about November 27, 1967 and continuing thereafter, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the defendant being subject to the Selective Service Act did knowingly and unlawfully refuse to perform a duty required under the Act in that he failed to comply with a valid order of his local board dated November 17, 1967 directing him to report for induction on November 27, 1967 into the Armed Forces of the United States in violation of 50 App.U.S.C. § 462.
A motion to dismiss the indictment is not a device for a summary trial of the evidence. It is directed only to the question of the validity of the indictment on its face, and its sole function is to test the sufficiency of the indictment to charge an offense. United States v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75, 83 S.Ct. 173, 9 L.Ed.2d 136 (1962). The sufficiency of the indictment must be determined from the words of the indictment and the Court is not free to consider evidence not appearing on the face of the indictment. An indictment is sufficient if it (1) alleges all of the elements of the offense, (2) fairly informs the defendant of that which he must be prepared to meet in the preparation of his defense, (3) protects him against double jeopardy, and (4) enables the Court to determine whether the facts alleged are sufficient in law to withstand a motion to dismiss or to support a conviction. United States v. Fargas, D.C., 267 F. Supp. 452 (1967). United States v. Luros, D.C., 243 F.Supp. 160 (1965). See Rule 7(c) F.R.Crim.P. Certainly the indictment complies with these standards.
In respect to defendant's first claim pertaining to the validity of the induction order, this is a matter of defense which properly may be raised only at trial. United States v. Sisson, 399 U.S. 267, 90 S.Ct. 2117, 26 L.Ed.2d 608 (1970). United States v. Fargas, supra.
Defendant, however, in his second contention that the delay of almost 25 months from the date of the offense to the date of the indictment deprived him of his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment raises a constitutional question. Defendant relies upon Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30, 90 S.Ct. 1564, 26 L.Ed.2d 26 (1970). In that case,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Hutchins
...to be a ‘summary trial of the evidence.’ " United States v. Yasak , 884 F.2d 996, 1001 (7th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Winer , 323 F.Supp. 604, 605 (E.D. Pa. 1971) ). The Court will not assess "the strength or weakness of the government's case" at this stage—rather, it will consid......
-
United States v. Firtash
...an offense has been sufficiently charged." United States v. Yasak , 884 F.2d 996, 1001 (7th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Winer , 323 F.Supp. 604, 605 (E.D. Pa. 1971) ). As laid out above, indictments are generally sufficient so long as they set out the elements, apprise defendants o......
-
United States v. Gulf Oil Corp.
...validity of the indictment on its face. United States v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75, 83 S.Ct. 173, 9 L.Ed.2d 136 (1962); United States v. Winer, 323 F.Supp. 604 (E.D.Pa.1971). The Government urges that an indictment is sufficient if it (1) alleges all the elements of the offense, (2) fairly infor......
-
U.S. v. Cain, 05-CR-20A(F).
...to the facial validity of the indictment." United States v. Eichman, 756 F.Supp. 143, 145-46 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (citing United States v. Winer, 323 F.Supp. 604, 605 (E.D.Pa.1971)). See Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 791, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962) ("There is no such thing as a......