Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UNITED STATES v. SKURLA

December 2, 1954

UNITED STATES of America
v.
Andrew SKURLA, et al. UNITED STATES of America v. George CAVADA and John J. Walker. UNITED STATES of America v. Patsy Dominic GRILLO, et al. UNITED STATES of America v. Mike F. SICILLA, et al. UNITED STATES of America v. Althronia BROWN, et al. UNITED STATES of America v. William VIOLA. UNITED STATES of America v. Augustus VANCE, et al. UNITED STATES of America v. Paul THOMAS, Jr. UNITED STATES of America v. Alfred E. RILEY, et al. UNITED STATES of America v. Sanders Sam WILLIS, Sr., and Betty Louise Holbrook. UNITED STATES of America v. William VIOLA and Damon Jenkins. UNITED STATES of America v. Abner Theodore KNIGHT



The opinion of the court was delivered by: GOURLEY

In connection with divers indictments returned by the grand jury on March 4, 1954, commonly known as the vote fraud indictments, numerous motions have been filed before this court.

For purposes of clarity the indictments have been classified in specific categories for disposition of this issues presented.

 The following opinions are herein reported:

 I. Motion to produce records of the grand jury.

 II. Motions to quash indictments:

 (a) Conspiracy to intimidate indictments, 126 F.Supp. 713.

 (b) Bribery indictments, 126 F.Supp. 718.

 (c) Perjury indictment, 126 F.Supp. 720.

 Motion to Produce Records of the Grand Jury.

 This is a motion by defendants to require the United States Attorney to produce records of the grand jury for inspection by this court.

 The grand jury returned the above indictments alleging a conspiracy to intimidate voters in the November 4, 1952 elections in Pennsylvania, 18 U.S.C. § 241.

 Defendants contend that a witness appeared before the grand jury strongly identified with a self-styled reform movement in the area where the alleged intimidations occurred, and that her testimony, which must necessarily have been based upon hearsay, was a contributing factor to these indictments.

 They further advance the thesis that the sole purpose of this witness' appearance was to harangue, browbeat or otherwise exert undue influence upon the grand jurors and subvert the purpose of their convening.

 Pursuant to the view that this testimony, of an incompetent and inadmissible nature, could have materially swayed the jurors in their deliberations, defendants insist that the court should review the entire proceedings before the grand jury and determine what part, if any, said testimony played in instigating the indictments, so that the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.