Opinion ID: 321648
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The preliminary hearing of July, 1973.

Text: 30 The absence of any record of the preliminary hearing of July, 1973 did not prejudice the defendant in this case, and such hearing was not required by 18 U.S.C. 3060(e). 31 A preliminary hearing is not 'required to be accorded an arrested person . . ., if at any time subsequent to the initial appearance of such person before a judge or magistrate and prior to the date fixed for the preliminary examination pursuant to subsections (b) and (c) an indictment is returned . . . against such person in a court of the United States.' See 18 U.S.C. 3060(e). As noted above, the defendant was subject to the indictment of June 29, 1973, at the time of the July preliminary hearing. 32 Furthermore, the district court found 'as a fact that the reason for the nonavailability of the testimony is not due to the fault of either side,' and 'neither side has access to a transcript of the statement.' See page 1197 above. 33 II. Practice of the United States Attorney in some cases of selectively recording or transcribing only those portions of grand jury testimony presented by non-government witnesses. 34 The district court found that there was no evidence that the above practice, which is apparently often used in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, was used in this case. It held that there was 'a total failure of proof' that this practice was followed 'in this case at any stage' (see page 1197 above). The evidence shows that there was no recording or transcript of the testimony before the first grand jury and that 'all testimony presented to the grand jury in support of the superseding indictment was transcribed and that a transcript . . . will be available (at trial) for cross-examination purposes.' Thus, there was no error in its denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment. 35 Nevertheless, because of our concern with this problem, we requested the parties to this case to submit supplemental memoranda, as a result of which we have been informed by appellee as follows: 36 'About a year ago the Criminal Division asked all the United States Attorneys to comment upon a proposal to require the recording of all grand jury proceedings . . .. A number of United States Attorneys complained of the difficulty currently encountered in obtaining the services of court reporters on a timely basis and questioned whether a recording requirement could reasonably be met. The use of electronic recording equipment to record all grand jury proceedings might be practical, but the cost for the equipment, necessary personnel, and a certain amount of acoustical engineering would be very substantial. 37 'The advisory committee on the criminal rules of the Judicial Conference is now considering the amendment of Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to require the recording of all grand jury proceedings. It is anticipated that the committee will soon make its recommendation concerning the substance and scope of the proposal. 38 . . . .oon'III. PRACTICE FOLLOWED IN EACH OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT REGARDING THE RECORDING OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY. 39 'The same general practice with regards to recording grand jury testimony is followed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Western District of Pennsylvania, the District of New Jersey and the District of Delaware. In these Districts the testimony of lay witnesses is recorded and the testimony of agents on indictments is not recorded. Exceptions to this general practice in some cases are made at the discretion of the Assistant United States Attorney. 40 'The Middle District of Pennsylvania as a general practice does not record any grand jury testimony.' 41 See pp. 8-10 of appellee's supplemental memorandum. 42 We have held that the recording of all grand jury testimony is not required. See United States v. Heckman, 479 F.2d 726, 732 (3d Cir. 1973). 5 However, the federal courts considering the requirements governing the recording of grand jury testimony have generally stated that in a criminal case the parties should be in an equal position in their ability to impeach witnesses through the use of grand jury testimony, see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 86 S.Ct. 1840, 16 L.Ed.2d 973 (1966), and hence the practice of only transcribing a portion of the grand jury testimony has been disapproved. See, for example, United States v. Battisti, 486 F.2d 961, 963-964 (6th Cir. 1973); United States v. Arradondo, 483 F.2d 980, 984-985 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Aloisio, 440 F.2d 705, 708 n.2 (7th Cir. 1971); United States v. Thoresen, 428 F.2d 654 (9th Cir. 1970); Schlinsky v. United States, 379 F.2d 735, 740 (1st Cir. 1967); United States v. Cianchetti, 315 F.2d 584, 591 (2d Cir. 1963). 43 The practice of recording the grand jury testimony only of non-Government witnesses is undesirable, since it denies defendants the same opportunity available to the Government of impeaching the trial testimony of those witnesses unfavorable to their case. If the testimony of any grand jury witness or witnesses is to be recorded, either by a court reporter or a recording device, all such testimony should be recorded so that the defense and the Government will both have available all portions of the grand jury testimony, provided that the court approves the method, form and condition of disclosure. This practice would prevent the recording of only those portions of grand jury testimony helpful to the Government. 44 III. Contention that 18 U.S.C. 641 requires proof that the defendant knew that 'the property taken was that of the United Staes.' 45 After careful consideration, we approve of the district court holding that the Government was not required to prove that Crutchley was aware that the property taken belonged to the United States. We decline to follow the view adopted in Findley v. United States, 362 F.2d 921 (10th Cir. 1966). In United States v. Howey, 427 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1970), the court used this language at 1017-1018: 46 'We think that Findley is wrong, and we decline to follow it. 47 'It was not an essential part of the common law larceny-type offense that the thief knew who owned the property he took; it was enough that he knew it did not belong to him. The legislative history provides no support for an assumption that Congress intended in section 641 to add to the common law offenses a new requirement that a thief know who owned the property he was stealing. 48 'The reason for including the requirement that the property, in fact, belongs to the Government was to state the foundation for federal jurisdiction. A defendant's knowledge of the jurisdictional fact is irrelevant, as we have held in many cases interpreting analogous statutory provisions.' 49 The position taken in Howey, supra, has been followed in subsequent decisions of the United States Court of Appeals dealing with this subject. See United States v. Smith, 489 F.2d 1330, 1332-1334 (7th Cir. 1973); United States v. Boyd, 446 F.2d 1267, 1274 (5th Cir. 1971); Baker v. United States, 429 F.2d 1278 (9th Cir. 1970). 50