United States v. Stapleton

E.D. Tennessee

United States v. Stapleton

271 F. Supp. 59, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7135

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee

DecidedApril 6, 1967

DocketCr. A. No. 6954

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 271 F. Supp. 59 (United States v. Stapleton) 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. Stapleton, 271 F. Supp. 59, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7135 (E.D. Tenn. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NEESE, District Judge.

A grand jury returned an indictment on March 27, 1967, charging the defendant herein with the commission of a crime on November 11, 1967. The United States attorney for this District submitted after the arraignment of this defendant on April 3, 1967 a proposed order to correct the obvious typographical error in the indictment so as to reflect the date of the offense as having been November 11, 1966.

“* * * [A]n indictment may not be amended except by resubmission to the grand jury, unless the change is merely a matter of form. * * *” Russell v. United States (1962), 369 U.S. 749, 770, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 1050, 8 L.Ed.2d 240, 255 (headnote 16), cited in United States v. Campbell, D.C. Tenn. (1964), 235 F.Supp. 94. This indictment may be amended judicially by changing the figures 1967 therein to 1966.

This could not mislead or prejudice the defendant in any degree nor affect any substantive right of the defendant’s, being merely a matter of form and allowable under statutes intended to eliminate the effects of all purely technical and formal defects. Ledbetter v. United States (1898), 170 U.S. 606, 612, 18 S.Ct. 774, 42 L.Ed. 1162, 1164; United States v. Aloowsine, D.C.Alaska (1955), 17 [60]*60F.R.D. 211, 212 [1]; Butler v. United States, C.A.10th (1952), 197 F.2d 561, 562 [2]; Berg v. United States, C.A.9th (1949), 176 F.2d 122, 126 [12], certiorari denied (1949), 338 U.S. 876, 70 S.Ct. 137, 94 L.Ed. 537; Weatherby v. United States, C.C.A.10th (1945), 150 F.2d 465, 466-467 [6]; Thompson v. United States, C.C.A.3rd (1922), 283 F. 895, 898 [3]; United States v. Gaag, D.C.Mont. (1916), 237 F. 728, 730 [3] ; see also United States v. Howard, D.C. Tenn. (1904), 132 F. 325, 335; United States v. McKinley, C.C.Or.D. (1903), 127 F. 168, 170(1); Hume v. United States, C.C.A.5th (1902), 118 F. 689, 695-697(2,3); cf. contra (dicta): Fowler v. Ross (1952), 90 U.S.App.D.C. 305, 196 F.2d 25, 32 [5].

The proposed amendatory order is herewith being approved and entered.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NEESE, District Judge.

A grand jury returned an indictment on March 27, 1967, charging the defendant herein with the commission of a crime on November 11, 1967. The United States attorney for this District submitted after the arraignment of this defendant on April 3, 1967 a proposed order to correct the obvious typographical error in the indictment so as to reflect the date of the offense as having been November 11, 1966.

“* * * [A]n indictment may not be amended except by resubmission to the grand jury, unless the change is merely a matter of form. * * *” Russell v. United States (1962), 369 U.S. 749, 770, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 1050, 8 L.Ed.2d 240, 255 (headnote 16), cited in United States v. Campbell, D.C. Tenn. (1964), 235 F.Supp. 94. This indictment may be amended judicially by changing the figures 1967 therein to 1966.

This could not mislead or prejudice the defendant in any degree nor affect any substantive right of the defendant’s, being merely a matter of form and allowable under statutes intended to eliminate the effects of all purely technical and formal defects. Ledbetter v. United States (1898), 170 U.S. 606, 612, 18 S.Ct. 774, 42 L.Ed. 1162, 1164; United States v. Aloowsine, D.C.Alaska (1955), 17 [60]*60F.R.D. 211, 212 [1]; Butler v. United States, C.A.10th (1952), 197 F.2d 561, 562 [2]; Berg v. United States, C.A.9th (1949), 176 F.2d 122, 126 [12], certiorari denied (1949), 338 U.S. 876, 70 S.Ct. 137, 94 L.Ed. 537; Weatherby v. United States, C.C.A.10th (1945), 150 F.2d 465, 466-467 [6]; Thompson v. United States, C.C.A.3rd (1922), 283 F. 895, 898 [3]; United States v. Gaag, D.C.Mont. (1916), 237 F. 728, 730 [3] ; see also United States v. Howard, D.C. Tenn. (1904), 132 F. 325, 335; United States v. McKinley, C.C.Or.D. (1903), 127 F. 168, 170(1); Hume v. United States, C.C.A.5th (1902), 118 F. 689, 695-697(2,3); cf. contra (dicta): Fowler v. Ross (1952), 90 U.S.App.D.C. 305, 196 F.2d 25, 32 [5].

The proposed amendatory order is herewith being approved and entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 F. Supp. 59, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-stapleton-tned-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack