The opinion of the court was delivered by: CANNELLA
CANNELLA, District Judge.
The defendant is charged in an indictment filed in this District Court on October 30, 1970 with harboring and concealing the fugitive Angela Yvonne Davis from "on or about the 15th day of August, up to and including the 13th day of October 1970" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071.
On November 24, 1970, the defendant moved pursuant to Rule 6(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (F.R. Cr. P.) and the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968,
28 U.S.C. § 1867(a), to dismiss the indictment or, in the alternative, for a hearing to determine if the grand jury which returned the indictment was selected in compliance with the Act. The defendant also filed motions on November 24th for a bill of particulars pursuant to Rule 7(f), F.R. Cr. P.; for discovery and inspection pursuant to Rule 16, F.R. Cr. P.; for suppression of evidence pursuant to Rule 41(e), F.R. Cr. P.; and for an order permitting inspection and copying of the minutes of the proceedings before the grand jury pursuant to Rule 6(e), F.R. Cr. P.
The court granted that part of the defendant's motion which sought a hearing to determine if the grand jury had been selected in compliance with the Act.
The hearing was scheduled for December 17, 1970 at which time the defendant indicated his inability to adduce any evidence tending to substantiate his allegation that there has been "a substantial failure" to comply with the provisions of the Act.
The court thus reiterates now what was said to the defendant at the hearing, namely, that his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground stated is denied without prejudice. See Hearing Minutes, pp. 6, 8.
The defendant makes 14 specific requests in his motion for a bill of particulars. The government has consented to comply with those numbered 1 (if known), 2, 3 and 8, and they are hereby granted. The court finds that requests 4 through 7 seek, in essence, pre-trial disclosure of the government's case, and they are therefore hereby denied. See, e.g., United States v. McCarthy, 292 F. Supp. 937, 940 (S.D.N.Y. 1968). Requests 9 through 14 are also hereby denied.
The defendant's motion for discovery and inspection contains eight specific requests. The government has consented to those numbered 1, 3, 5 and 6, and they are hereby granted. Requests 2, 4 and 7 are hereby denied. The court finds that request 8 is essentially governed by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and the government has indicated that it is aware of its responsibilities set forth in this decision.
The defendant's motion made pursuant to Rule 41(e), F.R. Cr. P. seeks an order suppressing evidence obtained as a result of illegal eavesdropping or searches and seizures. A hearing commenced on December 17, 1970 at which time it was determined that the motion was directed at five different searches conducted by federal agents.
The first search in question was conducted by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on September 30, 1970 in apartment 20A on the twentieth floor of the high-rise apartment building located at 6701 South Crandon Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. The second search took place on October 9, 1970 in apartment B 115 of the Golf Lake Apartments, 2601 NW 115th Street, Miami, Florida. The defendant and Miss Davis were arrested together at approximately 6 p.m. on October 13, 1970 at the Howard Johnson Motor Lodge on 52nd Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan, and a search was made both of the person of the defendant and of room 702 in which he and Miss Davis allegedly had been staying. On October 14, 1970, the FBI searched a Toyota automobile bearing Florida license plate number 10D-11785 which had been parked in the garage of the Howard Johnson Motor Lodge. Of these five searches, only the last one -- of the car -- was conducted pursuant to a warrant.
At the start of the hearing, the government did not oppose that part of the defendant's motion directed at suppressing all evidence obtained from the searches in the Miami apartment and the New York motel room,
and the motion is therefore hereby granted with regard to those two searches.
On the other hand, the government called a number of witnesses in opposing the motion with regard to suppression of the evidence obtained in the search of the Chicago apartment.