We also approach this case with an awareness of additional considerations which flow from the fact that the underlying proceeding is a criminal prosecution. And the party seeking mandamus has 'the burden of showing that its right to issuance of the writ is 'clear and indisputable." Bankers Life & Cas. 1351 (1948), and where a district judge displayed a persistent disregard of the Rules of Civil Procedure promulgated by this Court, La Buy v. 449 (1926), where it was necessary to confine a lower court to the terms of an appellate tribunal's mandate, United States v. 1014 (1943), where it was the only means of forestalling intrusion by the federal judiciary on a delicate area of federal-state relations, State of Maryland v. Thus the writ has been invoked where unwarranted judicial action threatened 'to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations,' Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. While the courts have never confined themselves to an arbitrary and technical definition of 'jurisdiction,' it is clear that only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial 'usurpation of power' will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy. 4 The peremptory writ of mandamus has traditionally been used in the federal courts only 'to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.' Roche v. In our view of the case, however, it is unnecessary to reach this question. We vacate the writ and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.īoth parties have devoted substantial argument in this Court to the propriety of petitioner's order. 1022, 18 L.Ed.2d 102 (1967), because of the wide implications of the decision below for the orderly administration of criminal justice in the federal courts. 2 The Government petitioned for reconsideration, however, and the Court of Appeals, without taking new briefs or hearing oral argument, reversed itself and without opinion issued a writ of mandamus directing petitioner 'to vacate his order directing the Government to answer question 25 in defendant's motion for bill of particulars.' 3 We granted certiorari, 386 U.S. This case was submitted on the briefs, and the Court of Appeals at first denied the writ. The Court of Appeals also granted the Government leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus and issued a rule to show cause why such a writ should not issue to compel petitioner to strike request number 25 from his bill of particulars order. Before the order of dismissal was entered, however the Government sought and obtained ex parte from the Seventh Circuit a stay of all proceedings in the case. Petitioner indicated his intention to dismiss the indictments against Horwitz because of the Government's refusal to comply with his order for a bill of particulars. The United States Attorney declined to comply with the order on the grounds that request number 25 constituted a demand for a list of prosecution witnesses and that petitioner had no power under Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to require the Government to produce such a list. 1 After considerable discussion with counsel for both sides, petitioner ordered the Government to furnish the information. It asked the names and addresses of the persons to whom such statements were made, the times and places at which they were made, whether the witnesses to the statements were government agents and whether any transcripts or memoranda of the statements had been prepared by the witnesses and given to the Government. This request sought certain information concerning any oral statements of the defendant relied upon by the Government to support the charge in the indictment. Ultimately the dispute centered solely on defendant's request number 25. The Government resisted a number of the requests, and over the course of several hearings most of these objections were either withdrawn by the Government or satisfied by an appropriate narrowing of the scope of the bill of particulars by petitioner. Simmie Horwitz, the defendant in a criminal tax evasion case pending before petitioner in the Northern District of Illinois, filed a motion for a bill of particulars, which contained thirty requests for information.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |