United States v. Herzig
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
WINSLOW, District Judge.
The defendants have made three separate motions: (1) To inspect the stenographer’s minutes of the grand jury which found the indietinent; (2) a plea in abatement; and (3) a motion to quash the indictment. The defendants have been indicted under ten separate counts for using the mails in a scheme to defraud, and also under a separate eount for conspiracy to commit the substantive offense.
Assuming that the court has the discretionary power to permit the inspection of the grand jury minutes, the moving papers are wholly insufficient to warrant the court exercising such…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Van Riper v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
- Kastel v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
- Wilson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
3Cited by16 opinions
- United States v. CotterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
- Cochran v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1930
- Stumbo v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1937
- United States v. Ben Grunstein & Sons CompanyDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1956
- United States v. CulverDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1963
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.