Legal Document

389 U.S. 90 88 Supreme Court Reporter 269 19 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 305 Honorable Hubert L. WILL, Judge, District for the Northern of Illinois, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. Number 36. Argued Oct. 17 and 18, 1967. Decided Nov. 13, Harvey M. Silets, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. Richard Atlantic Posner, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered opinion Court. 1 The question in this case is propriety a writ mandamus issued by Appeals Seventh Circuit to compel petitioner, vacate portion pretrial order criminal case. 2 Simmie Horwitz, defendant tax evasion pending before petitioner filed motion bill particulars, which contained thirty requests information. Government resisted number requests, over course several hearings most these objections were either withdrawn or satisfied an appropriate narrowing scope particulars Ultimately dispute centered solely on defendant's request 25. This sought certain information concerning any oral statements relied upon support charge indictment. It asked names addresses persons whom such made, times places at they whether witnesses government agents transcripts memoranda had been prepared given Government.1 After considerable discussion with counsel both sides, ordered furnish Attorney declined comply grounds that 25 constituted demand list prosecution no power under Rule 7(f) Federal Rules Criminal Procedure require produce list. 3 Petitioner indicated his intention dismiss indictments against Horwitz because Government's refusal particulars. Before dismissal was entered, however obtained ex parte from stay all proceedings also granted leave file petition rule show cause why should not issue strike order. submitted briefs, first denied writ.2 petitioned reconsideration, however, Appeals, without taking new briefs hearing argument, reversed itself directing 'to answer particulars.'3 We certiorari, 386 955, 87 1022, 18 102 (1967), wide implications decision below orderly administration justice federal courts. remand further proceedings. 4 Both parties have devoted substantial argument petitioner's In our view case, it unnecessary reach question.4 peremptory has traditionally used courts only confine inferior court lawful exercise its prescribed jurisdiction authority when duty do so.' Roche versus Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 21, 26, 63 938, 941 (1943). While never confined themselves arbitrary technical definition 'jurisdiction,' clear exceptional circumstances amounting judicial 'usurpation power' will justify invocation extraordinary remedy. De Beers Consol. Mines, Limited States, 325 212, 217, 65 1130, 1132, 89 L.Ed. 1566 (1945). Thus invoked where unwarranted action threatened embarrass executive arm conducting foreign relations,' Ex Republic Peru, 318 578, 588, 793, 799, 1014 (1943), means forestalling intrusion judiciary delicate area federal-state relations, State Maryland Soper, 270 9, 46 185, 70 449 (1926), necessary lower terms appellate tribunal's mandate, Dist. Court, 334 258, 68 1035, 92 1351 (1948), district judge displayed persistent disregard Civil promulgated La Buy Howes Leather Co., 352 249, 77 309, 290 (1957); see McCullough Cosgrave, 309 634, 60 703, 84 992 (1940); Los Angeles Brush Mfg. Corporation James, 272 701, 706, 707, 47 286, 288, 71 481 (1927) (dictum). And party seeking 'the burden showing right issuance 'clear indisputable." Bankers Life & Cas. company Holland, 346 379, 384, 74 145, 148, 98 106 (1953); rel. Bernardin Duell, 172 576, 582, 287 (1899). 5 approach awareness additional considerations flow fact underlying proceeding prosecution. All jurisprudence strongly colored notion review be postponed, except narrowly defined circumstances, until after final judgment rendered trial court. See, e.g., Judiciary Act 1789, §§ 22, 25, Statutes-at-Large 73, 83, 84, 85; Cobbledick 323, 326, 540, 541, 783 McLish Roff, 141 661, 12 118, 35 893 (1891). general policy piecemeal appeals takes added weight cases, entitled speedy resolution charges him. DiBella 369 121, 126, 82 654, 657, 7 614 (1962). Moreover, 'in jurisprudence, least, cases are something unusual, exceptional, favored,' Carroll 354 394, 400, 1332, 1336, 1442 (1957), least part always threaten offend policies behind double-jeopardy prohibition, cf. Fong Foo 141, 671, 629 appeal thus limited Congress narrow categories orders terminating prosecution, Code KF62 § 3731, strictly construed appeal, 399—400, 1335—1336 (1957). Mandamus, course, may employed as substitute derogation policies. E.g., 671 (1962); Parr 351 513, 520—521, 76 912, 917, 100 1377 (1956); Bank Columbia Sweeny, Pet. 567, 569, 265 (1828). Nor permitting interlocutory 'made less compelling * later appeal.' 130, 659 (1962).5 say procedural cases. successfully totally deprived initiate 241, 53 129, 283 (1932), overreached deny rightful fruits valid conviction, 242 27, 37 72, 61 129 (1916). But approved use did effect dismissal. need decide what if any, would appropriate. enough note we constitutional precepts man he placed twice jeopardy same offense. 6 light criteria, neither record us nor cryptic justifies understand argue sense 'jurisdiction' particulars.6 Suffice specifically empowers 'direct filing particulars,'7 very broad discretion ruling bills, compare Wong Tai 273 77, 300, 302, 545 (1927). Furthermore, uncommon required disclose some potential useful preparation trial. White, 370 Reporter, 2nd 559 (7th Cir. 1966). See Debrow, 374, 378, 113, 115, (1953). 8 seeks instead employment instance ground conduct displays 'pattern manifest noncompliance rules governing trials.'8 argues place settled limitations discovery not, absence justification, advance one category i.e., prosecutions treason other capital offenses, turn defense witnesses. A requiring disclosure particularized would, contended, informant's privilege. Petitioner, according Government, adopted 'a uniform courtroom defense, witnesses.'9 concludes since obviously adopt rule, lie Court's correct studied rules.10 9 cannot, us, bear justification. There absolutely foundation assertions practice. legal proposition willful disobedience laid down controverted. position rests two central factual premises: (1) trial; (2) took pursuant deliberately procedure. Neither premises finds record. 10 repeatedly and, think, correctly emphasized call He carefully noted utterly immaterial planned individuals whose witness stand during practical matter proof complex nature, extend far beyond mere damaging admissions defendant, probability called who heard make incriminating statements. Nor, people allegedly long, likely testify Government. while probable overlap, co-extensive. And, stated accompanying original particulars: 11 'The reason their witnesses, but requires identification times, present prepare defense.' Indeed, excused answering 29(a), so constitute Finally, order, averred willingness 'that involve physical risk prejudice ability evidence.' repeated offer numerous subsequent bill, suggested could made case.11 13 equally devoid deliberate open defiance matters discovery. extended colloquy between reveals generally liberal rights defendants.12 careful divorce legitimate needs him, there indication considered governed inflexible disclosure.13 can claimed erred within jurisdiction. 520, (1956). '(t)he writs cases; thwart congressional appeals.' Id., S.Ct., 917. must remembered, does 'run gauntlet reversible errors.' 382, 147 Its office 'control court,' rather merely sphere discretionary power. 383, 148. simply fails demonstrate necessity drastic remedy Appeals. 14 Even more important view, than deficiencies failure attempt supply reasoned justification action. Had shown proved seriously disruptive efficient raised serious questions (1957).14 Buy, evidence showed pattern improper references special masters Judge. U.S., 314. practice aside own remark dissatisfied it,15 reveal intent evade rules. know state renders silence critical. recognized familiarity individual circuit relevant assessment corrective measure. role, factor played below. fact, dark respect issues crucial informed review. know: found done; objected conduct—whether particular cases;16 (3) thought proper generalized bill; (4) relevance, attached entered assessing availability mandamus. cannot properly identify illumination unclear measured exposed reflection 15 Due regard, reviewing functions 'drastic extraordinary' nature remedy, Fahey, 332 259, 67 1558, 1559, 91 2041 (1947), extremely awkward id., 260, 1559 demands issuing give exposition basis 16 Mandamus punitive entire thrust moreover, serves vital didactic function. aims lay core decisions Schlagenhauf Holder, 379 104, 85 234 (1964), fail how served here findings statement court's reasoning. blue rationale tantamount abdication expository supervisory preemptory common-law among potent weapons arsenal. 'As remedies, reserved really causes.' (1947). nothing falls into category, stand. What might complete record, supplemented conclusions say. Hence vacated remanded inconsistent opinion. ordered. Writ remanded. MARSHALL consideration 20 BLACK, concurring. 21 N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions concur agree substantially opinion, like add few words, conflict says, circumstances. realize sometimes granting bring about appeal. Yet deprive writ. Where 'final' appealable statutes. Finality, then, determinative Rather hinging abstruse infinitely uncertain term, conceivable reasons forced requested compliance inflict irreparable damage trouble here, it, gave possible existence facts names. Having doubt appropriateness mandamus, exist deliberation calling Request originally read: '25. If (the relies defendant), each statement, one: 'a. name address person made; 'b. date 'c. 'd. substance statement; 'e. Whether Agent time 'f. 'g. written memorandum verbatim transcript so, possession transcript.' objected, inter alia, 'd' work-product grounds. At sustained objection struck altogether; agents, those private parties. denying read, entirety: 'This respondent, judge, effectually directs said indictments. Briefs fully points issue, subject 323 (60 783); non-appealable Association, (63 1185); traditional purpose confining jurisdiction, Association; judge's erroneous, decide, reviewed judgment; refused 'It Is Therefore Ordered hereby denied.' July 12, 1966. On August 16, 1966, remarking that: consider merits challenged government, remit radical alternative available government's comply; therefore vacated, taken writ, record.' Subsequently, October 4, reads follows: came ordering respondent sought, things, supporting indictment charging wilful income tax, rely issue; brief Government; 'And having 1966 reconsidered question, prayed particulars.' likewise aid Appeals' 28 1651; Compare re 348 624 (1st 1965), Bondy, 171 642 (2d 1948). even assuming future abuse act irrelevant, event dismissed highly doubtful Apex Distrib. 747 (9th 1959). unseemly force defy seek doubly secure certainty cited contempt, Bowman Dairy 341 214, 675, 95 879 (1951), status misses mark. clearly contemplated limits completely unable convictions. grant chosen withhold. 407—408, 1340 assume purposes way bills 'power' enter erroneous Acceptance semantic fallacy undermine orders. Courts faced petitions lest suffer misled labels 'abuse discretion' 'want nonappealable erroneous. 'Certainly knew chose them nonreviewable.' 223, 225, 1136 (1945) (dissenting Douglas). amended, effective 1, eliminate requirement 'cause.' amendment designed transform instrument discovery.' Brief Page 15, n. 5. intimate regarding construction amendment. Petitioner's promulgated. impact will, remand. 24. 11. passing approving policing civil 234, 152 (1964); 703 James 288 pointed out involves contextual relevance. supra, 96—98. reading venture abstract pronouncement imposes stringent standard allegation deviated point counsel: 'I told you representation jeopardize him physically testimony altered effort persuade testify, else, am don't people's lives security, well-being, encourage suppressed. That consistent, seems me, my philosophy shouldn't suppressing things; threat suppression then take lesser prevent greater.' Earlier, danger fabricated defenses justified replied: 'Now fabrication, believe deal it. laws perjury—we convictions perjury again, doubt, arising infromation me reasonably your afraid somebody helping won't able anything it.' Upon inquiry, suggestion result subornation perjury. remarked stage: 'You know, great concern sides submit maximum deposition involved money. doesn't want side go interview concerned life liberty. To strange aberration processes When money, put cards table. liberty involved, tell thing.' much exchange 'go further' referred proposed American Bar Association.' reference, amendments Procedure, time, determination despite accept argument. place, irrelevant second plain rested rules: Court: go, certainly lot you—a further. 'Mr. Schultz (United Attorney): They answers questions. that. giving conceive *.' initial needed adequately, continually asserted factors peculiar militated consideration. 11, supra. occasions focus insisting relate case: Schultz: talking Honor. Well, on. ruled last week earlier week. asking reconsider, vacate.' again: 'Why opportunity witnesses? Why cold recess be? Schultz. just situation—I situations, situation. made.' reliance arguing 'reaffirmed' Buy. Insofar help quarrel inapposite contended supports various substantial, squarely real examination. 'it secret disturbed making defendants identity alleged transactions contends illegal. '* evidence, supposed participated illegal present.' distinguish event, remarks running insufficient absent actions dialogue flowing experience 7(f). Another puzzling aspect do. 7, 14, 19, 23, 29 conceivably Horwitz' being 29. 29, broadly cast answered remaining latter indicates revelation

Classification Label: 8