Court Opinion

ID: 9641403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:30:56.064173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:37.347055
License: Public Domain

MINTON, Circuit Judge,
(dissenting).
This case is a splendid example of the old adage that hard cases make bad law. From the record, it would appear that this defendant was guilty. His substantial rights have not been violated, but substantial violence is done to a proposition of law that to me seems important as long as our Constitution provides that one can be charged with an infamous crime only by indictment. An indictment is the product under oath of a grand jury. Only a grand jury can return an indictment. From Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1, 7 S.Ct. 781, 30 L.Ed 849, until the promulgation of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,1 it had been the law that an indictment could not be amended in the body thereof for any reason. To do so was to make the indictment something other than the work of the grand jury. When the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, the Supreme Court provided in Rule 7(d) that surplusage in an indictment might be stricken out, but only on the motion of the defendant, thereby putting him in the position of waiving the constitutional provision that he could be charged only by the indictment of a grand jury or that he had by getting the court to strike surplusage from the indictment on his motion, estopped himself from raising the question that the indictment had been amended.
Until this rule became effective, Ex parte Bain had forbidden the amendment of an indictment in the body thereof for any reason, without resubmission to the grand jury. In that case, it was surplusage that was attempted to be stricken from the indictment.
As I understand the majority opinion, it holds that an amendment in the body of the indictment may be made as to formal matters, and that the charging of the defendant in the indictment in question by the name “Kenny” when his name was “Denny”*672is a mere formal matter; it was only a typographical error — a mere striking of the wrong key on the typewriter. This simple explanation as to how the mistake occurred does not, it seems to me, make the matter formal. The indictment gave the defendant a name that was not his. A defendant’s name is not a mere formal matter. It is one of the facts the Government has to prove, that is, that the name of the prisoner at the bar is the name of the defendant charged in the indictment.
The majority opinion states that that is not formal which the Government must prove. It seems plain to me that the defendant’s name is not a matter of form. Even if the error as to the defendant’s name were a matter of form occurring in the body of the indictment, still under the authority of Ex parte Bain, such error could not be corrected by amendment. The only modification of Ex parte Bain is Rule 7(d) which, as I have said, provides that surplusage may be stricken on the motion of the defendant.
The amendment in the instant case did not involve surplusage and was not made on the motion of the defendant. Indeed, the defendant at the earliest stage of this case and at all appropriate times thereafter challenged the indictment, afforded the Government the facts, and pointed the way to correction of the error by resubmission to the grand jury. But the Government chose another course, that of amendment, which seems to me condemned by Ex parte Bain.
The action of State courts and legislatures in providing for the amendment of indictments is of no concern to us. The Congress has attempted to legislate as to the manner in which technical errors that do not effect the substantial rights of the defendant may be treated on appeal. 18 U. S.C.A. § 556. I admit that the substantial rights of the defendant were not shown to have been violated, but I deny that the amendment of an indictment in the body thereof is technical. Such action by the court is so lethal that it destroys the indictment as a basis for the court’s further procedure. In other words, the Supreme Court has ruled (Ex parte Bain) that such amendment' destroys the court’s jurisdiction. Surely, there is nothing technical about that. Jurisdiction is as fundamenta! in jurisprudence as anything can be.
I agree that Rule 7(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does not repeal existing law. I do think that it modifies existing law by permitting amendment as to surplusage, and that only if the defendant assumes the onus of such action.
In my opinion, by amending this indictment in the body thereof, especially in such a material matter as the defendant’s name, the Government vitiated the indictment and destroyed the court’s jurisdiction. The only course open to the Government after this indictment had been returned with the error therein was to resubmit the case to the grand jury. Otherwise, it is not the indictment of the grand jury. It is the indictment of the court and the district attorney. If the court and the district attorney may amend indictments in such vital matters as to change completely the defendant’s name, what amendments may they not make? Where would we draw the line? In Rule 7(d) the Supreme Court drew it at the only place it could be drawn, and that was as the amendment pertained to formal, technical matter, and where the onus of the violation of the constitutional procedure could be placed upon the defendant.
The majority opinion relies upon United States v. Fawcett et al., 3 Cir.; 115 F.2d 764, 766. In that case the court did amend the indictment by adding “otherwise known as Leo Wilson” to the name of the defendant, Harry Nelson. In this doubtful case, at least the defendant was charged, before and after amendment, by his own name of Harry Nelson. I take it that it would have been sufficient if the Government proved that he was Harry Nelson. Furthermore, in that case, the objection was not presented at the earliest possible time, as it was in the instant case. An opportunity to resubmit the case to the grand jury was not afforded the Government in the Fawcett case. That case was based largely upon the proposition that: “* * * the defendant raised no objection to the addition ‘otherwise known as Leo Wilson’ at *673the time the government requested the change of the name in the indictment; no objection was made by the defendant to the change at the time of the entry of his plea of not guilty, and in fact throughout the whole case no objection was raised by the defendant to this addition, nor was any question ever raised as to the identity of the defendant. The question was only raised and for the first time at the close of all the evidence by a motion in arrest of judgment.” United States v. Fawcett et al., supra, 115 F.2d at pages 766, 767.
In that case the court said that the objection came too late, and it further held that the matter added was merely formal. Neither reason is present in the instant case. Here the defendant did just what the court in the Fawcett case said should have been done, and did it when it should have been done. Furthermore, the defendant here never was charged by his own name, except by amendment.
I would reverse the judgment for this reason only.

 18 U.S.C.A. following section 687.