United States v. Zimmerman

20 F.R.D. 587, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4545
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJune 10, 1957
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 20 F.R.D. 587 (United States v. Zimmerman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Zimmerman, 20 F.R.D. 587, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4545 (S.D.N.Y. 1957).

Opinion

PALMIERI, District Judge.

The defendant Edmond J. Mullaly, indicted under the name of Edward J. Mullally, has moved for an order under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., directing the attorney for the Government to permit the defendant to inspect and copy a signed statement obtained from him by an agent or agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation some time early in 1955.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has recently had occasion to comment on the divergence of views among the Judges of this District with respect to the scope of Rule 16. United States v. Louie Gim Hall and Wong Suey Loon, 2 Cir., 245 F.2d 338, 341. In that case, Judge Medina alluded to this matter in the following language:

“Since we have decided that the judgment of conviction must be set aside, and the statements have now been disclosed by the prosecution, we need not decide whether the District Court has the power to order such a disclosure, a question of no little difficulty. See, e. g., Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 71 S.Ct. 675, 95 L.Ed. 879; Shores v. United States, 8 Cir., 174 F.2d 838, 11 A.L.R.2d 635; State v. Tune, 13 N.J. 203, 98 A.2d 881; compare United States v. Peltz, D.C., 18 F.R.D. 394, with United States v. Peace, D.C., 16 F.R.D. 423.”

I expressed my own views in United States v. Evangelista, D.C., 20 F.R.D. 631. Further reflection has not impelled me to change them.

Defendant’s motion pursuant to Rule 16 to compel disclosure of his signed statement is granted. It may be inspected and copied by the defendant Mullaly or his counsel and no copy thereof is to be made available to the other defendant or to any other person.

In accordance with the stipulation of movant’s counsel made before me in open court, defendant’s further motion for a bill of particulars, pursuant to Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures is deemed withdrawn.

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

Related

United States v. Fancher
195 F. Supp. 448 (D. Connecticut, 1961)
United States v. Jannuzzio
22 F.R.D. 223 (D. Delaware, 1958)
United States v. Benson
20 F.R.D. 602 (S.D. New York, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 F.R.D. 587, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-zimmerman-nysd-1957.