Court Opinion

ID: 9653941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:59:27.897749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:09.806515
License: Public Domain

COTTERAL, Circuit Judge
(dissenting). I deem it unfortunate that this court is now committed to a rule which requires an indictment or information to plead more definitely the place of an offense. Such particularity as the defendant may desire or need' may be furnished by a bill of particulars, and thereby he is enabled to prepare his defense, and plead former jeopardy in another prosecution. After an experience of more than 20 years in the trial court, I do not recall a ease where failure to allege more definitely the locus of an offense has prejudiced a defendant. The need of a defendant might exist where there has been a multiplicity of offenses, but it is easily remedied by a bill of particulars so that no harm would accrue to him. But application of the rule, especially’where the statutory limitation applies, may result in releasing offenders who ought to be brought to justice.
In my view, the opinion written by Judge Van Valkenburgh in Myers v. United States (C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) 977, is entirely sound and should be adopted in this circuit. I therefore dissent in this ease.