Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UNITED STATES v. EGOROV

October 29, 1963.

UNITED STATES of America
v.
Ivan Dmitrievich EGOROV, a/k/a Ivan D. Yegorov, Aleksandra Ivanovna Egorova, a/k/a Alexandra I. Egorova, John Doe, a/k/a Robert Keistutis Baltch, a/k/a Robert Baltch, and Jane Doe, a/k/a Joy Ann Garber, a/k/a Joy Ann Baltch, a/k/a Joy A. Baltch.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: RAYFIEL

RAYFIEL, District Judge.

On July 15, 1963 a two-count indictment was returned against the abovenamed defendants, count 1 of which charges that from on or about March, 1963, and continuously thereafter up to and including the date of the filing thereof, the defendants, in violation of Section 794(c) of Title 18 United States Code, unlawfully, knowingly and wilfully conspired with certain named and unnamed officials of the Soviet Military Intelligence and divers other persons to violate Section 794(a) of said Title by agreeing to communicate, deliver and transmit to a foreign government, or its representatives or agents, information relating to the national defense of the United States, with intent or reason to believe that it would be used to the advantage of said foreign government.

 Count 2 charges that on or about the same dates, in Moscow, in the Districts of Columbia and Maryland, and elsewhere, the defendants, not being diplomatic or consular officers or attaches of a foreign government, in violation of Section 371 of said Title, conspired with various named and unnamed officials of the Soviet Military Intelligence to violate the provisions of Section 951 of said Title.

 The defendants John Doe, also known as Robert Keistutis Baltch and Robert Baltch, and Jane Doe, also known as Joy Ann Garber, Joy Ann Baltch and Joy A. Baltch, have moved this Court

 1. for an order under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure severing the case against them from the other defendants named in the indictment,

 2. for an order under Section 3432 of Title 18 United States Code, directing the United States Attorney to immediately furnish a list of the witnesses to be produced at the trial for proving the indictment and a list of the veniremen, stating the address of each witness and venireman,

 3. for an order under Rule 7(f) of the said Rules directing the United States Attorney to serve and file a bill of particulars in accordance with the demand set forth in the notice, and

 4.for an order under Rule 41(e) of the said Rules directing the suppression of all evidence seized in Apartment 42 in 2839 27th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. on July 2, 1963. With respect to this item of relief the defendants requested, in the alternative, "that the Court direct that a hearing be held with respect to said property * * *."

 The motion for a severance.

 The application for a severance is now academic, the indictment against the codefendants Egorov and Egorova having been dismissed on October 14, 1963,

 The motion under Section 3432.

 This being a capital case the Government, as provided by Section 3432, supra, is required to furnish the defendants, "at least three entire days before commencement of trial," with a list of the veniremen and their addresses, and a list of the witnesses whom it will produce "on the trial for proving the indictment," together with their addresses. In view of the fact that the Government intends to call a substantial number of witnesses, it is directed to furnish the defendants with their names and addresses at least 10 days before the commencement of the trial. The names and addresses of the veniremen will be forwarded immediately after they are available to the Government.

 The motion for a bill of particulars.

 The demand for a bill of particulars herein includes upwards of one hundred items and subdivisions, a substantial number of which seek a quite detailed and, in some instances, a complete disclosure of the Government's evidence. These latter are denied. "The government should not be compelled by a bill of particulars to make a 'complete discovery' of its entire case. Braatelien v. United States, 8 Cir., 147 F.2d 888; Rubio v. United States, 9 Cir., 222 F.2d 766 certiorari denied 276 U.S. 619, 48 S. Ct. 213, 72 L. Ed. 734." Nye & Nissen v. United States, 9 Cir., 168 F.2d 846 (Affirmed 336 U.S. 613, 69 S. Ct. 766, 93 L. Ed. 919). Compliance with certain other demands would have had the effect of limiting the Government's proof. These, too, are denied. See United States v. Yarus, D.C., 198 F.Supp. 425, and cases cited in Note 10 thereof. See also United States v. Murray, 2 Cir., 297 F.2d 812, 819.

 The following disposition is made of defendants' demands:

 Items 1, 3, 6(b), 6(d), 6(e), 6(f), 6(g), 7(c), 7(e), 8(c), 8(e), 9(b), 10, 11(c), 11(d), 13, 14(d), 14(e), 15(c), 16(c), 17(c), 19(c), 19(d), 19(e), 20(b), 21(b), 22(c), 22(d), 22(e), 24, 25, 28, 30, 33, 35, 38, 40, 43, 45, 48, 50, 53, 55, 56, 59, 60, 63, 64(a), 64(b), 64(c), 65(a), 65(b), 65(c) are denied.

 Items 2 and 62 are granted to the extent that the Government will state the place or places within each of the three Districts in the United States where "the conspiracy took place."

 Items 4, 5, 61 are granted only as to those, if any, whom the Government intends ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.