Court Opinion

ID: 9476485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:57:07.418656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:20.806932
License: Public Domain

DUMBAULD, Senior District Judge,
concurring:
As stated in the excellent and thorough opinion of Judge Magill, the superseding indictment “upon which the case was eventually tried, named ‘ITT Blackburn Company, a Division of International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation.’ ” The name of ITT before December 31,1983, (and thus at the date of the four shipments violating the Carter embargo) was International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation.
In my judgement, this would be the normal and valid way of indicting a division of a corporation (as distinguished from a subsidiary corporation) under normal circumstances and ITT would clearly be deemed a defendant in such an indictment.
Here, however, from the grand jury transcript which is in the record before us, it clearly appears that the grand jury did not intend to indict ITT. When the question was raised by a grand juror why ITT was not being indicted nominatim et literatim, the government attorney’s response, and the grand jury’s corresponding action, clearly indicate, as Judge Magill points out, that the grand jury merely “intended to indict Blackburn and not ITT.” Hence a judgement of conviction contrary to the intention of the grand jury would be viola-tive of the constitutional rights of ITT under the Fifth Amendment.
Therefore I concur completely in the opinion of the Court and write separately merely to emphasize that a different result might be reached if the relevant grand jury transcript were not before us.