Legal Opinion

United States v. Starks

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided August 20, 1946PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOLTZOFF,

Justice, District Court of U. S. for District of Columbia, sitting by designation.

Assuming that at common law an indictment for forgery had to set out in haec verba the document charged to have been forged,* it is the view of this Court that this requirement no longer prevails under the new Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 7(c) provides that the indictment or the information shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. The rule also contains the following provision:

“It”—meaning the indictment—“need not…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. United States v. FrenchU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1893

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. United States v. MartinezDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1947
  2. United States v. Peace Information CenterDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1951
  3. United States v. McCullochDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1947
  4. United States v. LindermanDistrict Court, D. Montana · 1957
  5. United States v. MeyersDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1948

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API