United States v. Mayse

E.D. Tennessee

United States v. Mayse

467 F. Supp. 1339, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15048

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee

DecidedJanuary 17, 1979

DocketCR-2-78-15

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 467 F. Supp. 1339 (United States v. Mayse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Mayse, 467 F. Supp. 1339, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15048 (E.D. Tenn. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

NEESE, District Judge.

On the eve of a hearing herein as to the mental competency of the defendant Mr. John Henry Sims to assist in his defense, see memorandum and orders herein of January 3, 1979, the prosecuting attorney moved the Court * to disclose to the reporting psychiatrist who examined such defendant the presentence report relating to such examined defendant and allow that physician to read and “utilize” the same. By affidavit of such prosecuting attorney, it was established that the attorney for such defendant has consented to such use thereof.

Notwithstanding such consent of the parties, the Court hereby DENIES the application. Disclosure of such a presentence report is governed by Rule 32(c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; except to the extent that disclosure of a presentence report is permitted under circumstances adverted to in the aforecited rule, it is a confidential document and not to be disclosed to anyone. United States v. Dur ham, D.C.D.C. (1960), 181 F.Supp. 503[1], certiorari denied (1960), 364 U.S. 854, 81 S.Ct. 83, 5 L.Ed.2d 77.

*

Such counsel failed or neglected to submit with such written motion a brief with authorities as required by local Rule 12(a).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

NEESE, District Judge.

On the eve of a hearing herein as to the mental competency of the defendant Mr. John Henry Sims to assist in his defense, see memorandum and orders herein of January 3, 1979, the prosecuting attorney moved the Court * to disclose to the reporting psychiatrist who examined such defendant the presentence report relating to such examined defendant and allow that physician to read and “utilize” the same. By affidavit of such prosecuting attorney, it was established that the attorney for such defendant has consented to such use thereof.

Notwithstanding such consent of the parties, the Court hereby DENIES the application. Disclosure of such a presentence report is governed by Rule 32(c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; except to the extent that disclosure of a presentence report is permitted under circumstances adverted to in the aforecited rule, it is a confidential document and not to be disclosed to anyone. United States v. Dur ham, D.C.D.C. (1960), 181 F.Supp. 503[1], certiorari denied (1960), 364 U.S. 854, 81 S.Ct. 83, 5 L.Ed.2d 77.

*

Such counsel failed or neglected to submit with such written motion a brief with authorities as required by local Rule 12(a).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

467 F. Supp. 1339, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mayse-tned-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack