Legal Opinion
United States v. Brandt
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided July 29, 1955No. Crim. 21076PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McNAMEE, District Judge.
The defendants are charged with a conspiracy to violate Section 2 of the Smith Act, Title 18, Section 2385, U.S.Code, and all except Hashmall have filed the various motions noticed below.
Motion for Bill of Particulars.
This motion contains 25 numbered requests which with subdivisions thereof include more than fifty demands for particularization. It is unnecessary to refer to these requests in detail. Their manifest purpose is to elicit most, if not all, of the evidentiary facts supporting the Government’s case. This is not the office of a bill of particulars. As…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Pinkerton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Dennis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Hyde v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- United States v. DennisCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1950
- Bowman Dairy Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- United States v. AddonizioDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1970
- United States v. GilboyDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1958
- State v. SheltonAlaska Supreme Court · 1962
- State v. SmithWashington Supreme Court · 1960
- United States v. HaugDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1957
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.