United States v. Wrigley
Decision Date | 05 February 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 74 CR 448-W-1.,74 CR 448-W-1. |
Citation | 392 F. Supp. 9 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. William Robert WRIGLEY, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Bert C. Hurn, U. S. Atty., Philip J. Adams, Jr., Sp. Atty., Dept. of Justice, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.
David R. Freeman, Federal Public Defender, Kansas City, Mo., R. Thomas Day, Asst. Federal Public Defender, for defendant.
Defendant, represented by an Assistant Federal Public Defender, filed a motion for discovery on January 9, 1975 for the purpose of resolving the following issues stated in the suggestions filed in support of that motion:
The government contends that the "resolution of the two issues presented by the defense has been met by the attached copies of letters of appointment and oaths" Ibid, p. 12 to support its argument that "from the exhibits attached hereto it is apparent that the attorneys for the United States were and are duly appointed and qualified to act on behalf of the United States" Ibid, p. 11.
In regard to the first issue presented by defendant's motion, the government apparently concedes that Mr. Adams and Mr. Cornwell did in fact appear before the grand jury which returned the indictment in this case. It is also apparently conceded that neither Mr. Adams nor Mr. Cornwell are regularly appointed Assistant United States Attorneys for the Western District of Missouri and that their sole authority to represent the United States must necessarily be based upon the validity of their appointment as Special Attorneys. Our order directing further proceedings will make certain that the factual circumstances concerning Mr. Adams' and Mr. Cornwell's status are correct.
We believe it obvious that further proceedings must be directed in order to establish a full and accurate factual basis for the determination of the second issue presented by defendant's motion for discovery. For the question presented is whether Mr. Adams and Mr. Cornwell were properly appointed pursuant to and under the authority vested in the Attorney General by § 515(a), Title 28, United States Code, and whether they may properly be considered as authorized "attorneys for the government," within the meaning of Rule 6(d) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, who are entitled to be present while the grand jury is in session.
The government's contention that Mr. Adams and Mr. Cornwell had "facially valid letters of appointment" government's brief pp. 6-7 must be determined in accordance with the language of § 515(a) and the legislative history of that legislation passed by the Act of June 30, 1906. Section 515(a) authorizes the Attorney General "or any other officer of the Department of Justice specially appointed by the Attorney General under law" to conduct grand jury proceedings "when specifically directed by the Attorney General" to do so.
The Report of the House Judiciary Committee of April 4, 1906 entitled "Commencement and Conduct of Legal Proceedings Under Direction of the Attorney-General," Report No. 2901, 59th Cong., 1st Sess., states that what is now § 515(a) was enacted in light of the Circuit Court decision of United States v. Rosenthal (Cir.Ct.S.D.N.Y.1903), 121 F. 862. After quoting portions of that opinion, the Report stated the following:
The form letter of appointment in current use by the Department of Justice must, in our judgment, be read in light of the express language of § 515(a) which requires that persons appointed by the Attorney General must not only be "specially appointed" by him must also be "specifically directed" by him. The purpose of that language is illuminated by the Report of the House Judiciary Committee. That Report emphasized that the Congress intended by its enactment of what is now § 515(a) to vest power in the Attorney General to "specially appoint" counsel "to assist in the prosecution of a special case" so...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Prueitt
...such as the one given to Mr. Padgett with its complete lack of any specific direction." (footnotes omitted). See United States v. Wrigley, 392 F.Supp. 9, 12-13 (W.D.Mo.1975). Contrary to the district court's decision in Crispino, the majority of courts have upheld broad letters of authoriza......
-
Persico, In re
...(Oliver, J.); United States v. Crispino, 392 F.Supp. 764 (S.D.N.Y.1975 and March 24, 1975) (Werker, J.); United States v. Wrigley,392 F.Supp. 9 (W.D.Mo.1975) (Oliver, J.); United States J.). V. INAPPROPRIATENESS OF TOO NARROW AN INTERPRETATION OF APPLICABLE PROVISIONS The "specifically dire......
-
United States v. Badalamenti
...commission letters, which (except for Mr. Gregorie's) are broad and vague, see United States v. Crispino, supra, United States v. Wrigley, 392 F.Supp. 9 (W.D.Mo., 1975), rely on two documents as indicating that they were specifically directed to present the questioned matters. The first is ......
-
United States v. Dulski
...special attorneys be "specifically directed." In United States v. Wrigley, 392 F.Supp. 14 (W.D.Mo., March 11, 1975), 392 F.Supp. 9 (W.D.Mo., Feb. 5, 1975) (Oliver, J.); United States v. Agrusa, 392 F.Supp. 3 (W.D.Mo., Feb. 6, and Feb. 25, 1975) (Oliver, J.); and United States v. Crispino, 3......