United States v. Sam Umans (1966)

See, e.g., United States v. Bradsby, 628 F.2d 901 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir.1966), cert. granted, 386 U.S. 940 , 87 S.Ct. 975 , 17 L.Ed.2d 872 , cert. dismissed, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967). .

See, e.g., United States v. Bradsby, 628 F.2d 901 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir.1966), cert. granted, 386 U.S. 940 , 87 S.Ct. 975 , 17 L.Ed.2d 872 , cert. dismissed, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967) 6 Section 614a(a)(1)(C), (3)(C) provides as follows: (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law: (1) Any person who knowingly sells, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this Territory, or who is knowingly in actual or c…

Though caveats have been issued against excessive use of hearsay before grand juries, its use has always been accepted where, as here, it is “demonstrably inconvenient to summon witnesses able to testify to facts from personal knowledge.” United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. dismissed, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967); Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363 , 76 S.Ct. 406 , 100 L.Ed. 397 (1955).

Section 186 counts as lesser included offenses in RICO Appellant Seotto argues that multiple sentences, even if concurrent, cannot be imposed for violations of RICO and § 186 because § 186 Taft-Hartley Act violations are lesser included offenses, citing United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. dismissed, 389 U.S. 80 , 86 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967).

United States v. Estepa, 471 F.2d 1132 (2d Cir. 1972); United States v. Arcuri, 405 F.2d 691, 693 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 913 , 89 S.Ct. 1760 , 23 L.Ed.2d 227 (1969); United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967).

Cir.1974); 30 United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 728-30 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. dismissed, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967); United States v. Irwin, supra. CL United States v. Forgione, 487 F.2d 364, 365 (1st Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 976 , 94 S.Ct. 1561 , 39 L.Ed.2d 872 (1974); May v. United States, 84 U.S.App.

See, e. g., United States v. Alessio, 528 F.2d 1079, 1082 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 , 96 S.Ct. 3167 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1184 (1976); United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 729-30 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. dismissed, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967); United States v. Irwin, 354 F.2d 192, 197 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 967 , 86 S.Ct. 1272 , 16 L.Ed.2d 308 (1966).

“Therefore the correct relationship between § 201(b) and § 201(f) is that § 201(f) is a lesser-included offense of § 201(b).” United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. dismissed, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967).

United States v. Scandifia, 390 F.2d 244, 248 (2d Cir. 1968), vacated on other grounds, 394 U.S. 310 , 89 S.Ct. 1164 , 22 L.Ed.2d 297 (1969); United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 728 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. dismissed, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967).

United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d at 728-729, 730 .

See United States v. Estepa, 471 F.2d 1132, 1135-1136 (2d Cir. 1972); United States v. Leibowitz, 420 F.2d 39 (2d Cir. 1969); United States v. Russo, 413 F.2d 432 (2d Cir. 1969); United States v. Carella, 411 F.2d 729 (2d Cir. 1969); United States v. Arcuri, 405 F.2d 691 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 913 , 89 S.Ct. 1760 , 23 L.Ed.2d 227 (1969); United States v. Catino, 403 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 1003 , 89 S.Ct. 1598 , 22 L.Ed.2d 780 (1969); …

See United States v. Estepa, 471 F.2d 1132, 1135-1136 (2d Cir. 1972); United States v. Leibowitz, 420 F.2d 39 (2d Cir. 1969); United States v. Russo, 413 F.2d 432 (2d Cir. 1969); United States v. Carella, 411 F.2d 729 (2d Cir. 1969); United States v. Arcuri, 405 F.2d 691 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 913 , 89 S.Ct. 1760 , 23 L.Ed.2d 227 (1969); United States v. Catino, 403 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 1003 , 89 S.Ct. 1598 . 22 L.Ed.2d 780 (1969); …

We had hoped that, with the clear warnings we have given to prosecutors, going back to United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2 Cir. 1966), cert. granted, 386 U.S. 940 , 87 S.Ct. 975 , 17 L.Ed.2d 872 cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967), and the assurances given by United States Attorneys, see United States v. Arcuri, supra, 405 F.2d at 693 & n. 4, a reversal for improper use of hearsay before the grand jury would n…

Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363-364 , 76 S.Ct. 406 , 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956); United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir. 1966).

United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. granted, 386 U.S. 940 , 87 S.Ct. 975 , 17 L.Ed.2d 872 , cert. dismissed, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.W.2d 255, reh. denied, 389 U.S. 1025 , 88 S.Ct. 583 , 19 L.Ed.2d 675 (1907).

See also United States v. Cohen, 387 F.2d 803 (2 Cir. 1967), cert. denied 390 U.S. 996 , 88 S.Ct. 1197 , 20 L.Ed.2d 95 (1968); United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 728-729 (2 Cir. 1966), cert. granted 386 U.S. 940 , 87 S.Ct. 975 , 17 L.Ed.2d 872 , cert. dismissed 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 , rehearing denied 389 U.S. 1025 , 88 S.Ct. 583 , 19 L.Ed.2d 675 (1967); United States v. Barash, 365 F.2d 395, 402 (2 Cir. 1966).

Moreover, the admonition of United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. dismissed, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967), was *644 not violated.

Moreover the original indictment here was returned prior to this court’s admonition in United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2 Cir. 1966), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967), and it has repeatedly declined to dismiss such indictments in the absence of a showing of prejudice.

United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2 Cir. 1966), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967); see United States v. Beltram, 388 F.2d 449, 451 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, sub nom.

We have criticized “excessive use of hearsay” and have said that hearsay “should only be used when direct testimony is unavailable or when it is demonstrably inconvenient to summon witnesses able to testify to facts from personal knowledge,” United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2 Cir. 1966), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , *901 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967).

Moreover, although direct testimony is to be preferred, United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967), hearsay testimony may be considered by a Grand Jury.

Later Judge Waterman, speaking for the court in United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2 Cir. 1966), stated in affirming a conviction “[E]xcessive use of hearsay in the presentation of government cases to grand juries tends to destroy the historical function of grand juries in assessing the likelihood of prosecutorial success and tends to destroy the protection from unwarranted prosecution that grand juries are supposed to afford to the innocent.

While this court warned against the “excessive use of hearsay in the presentation of government cases to grand juries” unless “it is demonstrably inconvenient to summon witnesses able to testify to facts from personal knowledge,” United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2 Cir. 1966), cert, granted, 386 U.S. 940 , 87 S.Ct. 975 , 17 L.Ed.2d 872 , cert, dismissed as improvidently granted, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (Nov. 6,1967), the indictment in the present…

See, for example: United States v. Donlon, 256 F.Supp. 336, 341-343 (D.C.Del.1966), aff’d per curiam 370 F.2d 987 (C.A. 3, 1967); United States v. Birnbaum, 337 F.2d 490, 497-498 (C.A. 2, 1964); United States v. Heap, 345 F.2d 170 (C.A. 2, 1965); United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 731 (C.A. 2, 1966); Williamson v. United States, 365 F.2d 12, 15-16 (C.A. 5, 1966); Oertle v. United States, 370 F.2d 719, 723-725 (C.A. 10, 1966).

Gonzalez argues, as the appellant did unsuccessfully in United States v. Payton, 363 F.2d 996 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 993 , 87 S.Ct. 606 , 17 L.Ed.2d 453 (1966), that United States v. Costello, 350 U.S. 359 , 76 S.Ct. 406 , 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956), should not be extended to include a case like this where the Government had no need to rely on hearsay evidence before the grand jury, and certainly not to one where the witness in effect concealed the hearsay nature of his …

See State v. Murphy, 59 Haw. 1, 5-6 , 575 P.2d 448, 452-53 (1978); State v. Layton, 53 Haw. 513, 515 , 497 P.2d 559, 561 (1972) ("Hearsay evidence should only be used [in a grand jury proceeding] when direct testimony is unavailable or when it is demonstrably inconvenient to summon witnesses able to testify to facts from personal knowledge.” (quoting United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir.1966)).

While conceding that hearsay testimony can support an indictment, State v. Baumann, 125 Ariz. 404 , 610 P.2d 38 (1980), the petitioner urges us to adopt the viewpoint embraced by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that hearsay before a grand jury should be limited to those occasions "when direct testimony is unavailable or when it is demonstrably inconvenient to summon witnesses able to testify to facts from personal knowledge." United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725,…

Despite the lame apology offered at trial by Agent Ward, his statements to the grand jury, recorded in the transcript annexed to this opinion, were the words of a man who had seen or heard whereof he spoke and were plainly meant to be taken as such; the Government does not contend anything was said to the grand jury before Ward was sworn that would have apprised it of his limited knowledge. * * * "If, in these narcotics peddling cases, the Government insists on pressing Cost…

In Layton , the court quoted a passage from United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir. 1966), which expressed the following: Hearsay evidence should only be used [in a grand jury proceeding] when direct testimony is unavailable or when it is demonstrably inconvenient to summon witnesses able to testify to facts from personal knowledge. 53 Haw. at 515 , 497 P.2d at 561 .

See also United States v. Alessio, 528 F.2d 1079, 1082 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 , 96 S.Ct. 3167 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1184 (1976) (the court upheld gratuity conviction of defendant who paid part of a federal prison camp administrator’s expenses during vacation because the administrator was in a position from which he could affect the conditions of confinement of the defendant's father, an inmate at the prison); United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2nd Cir.1966), c…

While several cases have held that § 201(c) is a lesser included offense of § 201(b), United States v. Crutchfield, 547 F.2d 496, 500 (9th Cir.1977); United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir.1966), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967), it is not a necessarily lesser included offense.

The excessive use of hearsay before the grand jury “tends to destroy the historical *77 functions of grand juries in assessing the likelihood of prosecutorial success and tends to destroy the protection from unwarranted prosecutions that grand juries are supposed to afford the innocent.” United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir.1966), cert. granted, 386 U.S. 940 , 87 S.Ct. 975 , 17 L.Ed.2d 872 , cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 389 U.S. 1025 , 88 S.Ct. 583 …

United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir.1966).

Extensive use of hearsay is “disfavored,” United States v. Hogan, 712 F.2d 757, 761 (2d Cir.1983), but permissible “when direct evidence is unavailable or when it is demonstrably inconvenient to summon witnesses able to testify to facts from personal knowledge.” United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir.1966).

See Commonwealth v. Stone, 321 Mass. 471, 473-474 (1947); Commonwealth v. Butynski, 339 Mass. 151, 152 (1959); Commonwealth v. Baldassini, 357 Mass. 670, 677-679 (1970); Commonwealth v. Campbell, 371 Mass. 40, 42-43 (1976); Commonwealth v. Imbruglia, 377 Mass. 682, 695 (1979); Commonwealth v. Schoening, 379 Mass. 234, 242 (1979); Commonwealth v. Silva, 388 Mass. 495, 507 (1983); Commonwealth v. Edgerly, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 241, 252 (1978); McGaffigan v. United States, 359 F.2d …

In State v. Layton, 53 Haw. 513, 515 , 497 P.2d 559, 561 (1972), we quoted United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir. 1966) and stated that “[hjearsay evidence should only be used when direct testimony is unavailable or when it is demonstrably inconvenient to summon witnesses able to testify to facts from personal knowledge.” We later noted that this admonition was at most a policy expression and not a hard and fast rule.

In support of his contention that the indictment should have been dismissed, defendant cites a series of Second Circuit opinions: United States v. Estepa, 471 F.2d 1132, 1136-37 (2d Cir. 1972); United States v. Leibowitz, 420 F.2d 39, 41-42 (2d Cir. 1969); United States v. Arcuri, 405 F.2d 691 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 913 , 89 S.Ct. 1760 , 23 L.Ed.2d 227 (1969); United States v. Malofsky, 388 F.2d 288, 289 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1017 , 88 S.Ct. 1273 …

United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir. 1966) (Waterman, J.); United States v. Beltram, 388 F.2d 449, 451-54 (2d Cir. 1968) (Medina, J., dissenting).

In its attempt to insure the right of the accused “to have the grand jury make the charge on its own judgment,” Stirone v. United States, supra at 219, 80 S.Ct. at 274 , this Circuit has directed that hearsay evidence only be used “when direct testimony is unavailable or when it is demonstrably inconvenient to summon witnesses able to testify to facts from personal knowledge.” United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir. 1966). *565 THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT Defendant…

United States v. Umans, 368 F. 2d 725, 730 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted 389 U. S. 80 (1967); United States v. Arcuri, 282 F. Supp. 347 (E.

The statement of the district court in United States v. Arcure, regarding its future course, was based upon the admonition to prosecutors contained in the opinion of the court in United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir. 1966).

It will be denied except that, without mentioning the names of the witnesses, the Government should state whether all the evidence before the Grand Jury was hearsay; and if so, the name of the person with actual knowledge of the facts as to which the hearsay testimony was given (see United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2 Cir. 1966), cert, granted, 386 U.S. 940 , 87 S.Ct. 975 , 17 L.Ed.2d 872 , cert, dismissed 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967)).

Hearsay evidence should only be used when direct testimony is unavailable or when it is demonstrably inconvenient to summon witnesses able to testify to facts from personal knowledge.” United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. granted 386 U.S. 940 , 87 S.Ct. 975 , 17 L.Ed.2d 872 , writ of certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967).

See United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 728-29 (2d Cir.1966).

See United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725 (2d Cir. 1966) (dicta), cert. granted, *411 386 U.S. 940 , 87 S.Ct. 975 , 17 L.Ed.2d 872 , cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967); United States v. Malofsky, 388 F.2d 288 (2d Cir.) (dicta), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1017 , 88 S.Ct. 1273 , 20 L.Ed.2d 168 (1968), United States v. Leibowitz, 420 F.2d 39, 41-42 (2d Cir. 1969), 3 However, this “best evidence” rule has never been considered…

See United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725 (2nd Cir.1966), cert. granted, 386 U.S. 940 , 87 S.Ct. 975 , 17 L.Ed.2d 872 , cert. dismissed, 389 U.S. 80 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , reh. denied, 389 U.S. 1025 , 88 S.Ct. 583 , 19 L.Ed.2d 675 (1967).

See United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir. 1966).

See United States v. Umans, 368 F. 2d 725, 730 (2 Cir.1966), cert. granted 386 U.S. 940 , 87 S.Ct. 975 , 17 L.Ed. 2d 872 (1967), dismissed as improvidently granted, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed. 2d 255 , reh. den. 389 U.S. 1025 , 88 S.Ct. 583 , 19 L.Ed. 2d 675 (1967); United States v. Payton, 363 F. 2d 996, 999-1000 (2 Cir.1966) (Friendly, J., dissenting); United States v. Arcuri, 282 F. Supp. 347, 349 (E.D.N.Y. 1968), aff'd 405 F. 2d 691 (2 Cir.1968), cert. den. 395…

See United States v. Umans, 368 F. 2d 725, 730 (2 Cir. 1966), cert. granted 386 U. S. 940 , 87 S. Ct. 975 , 17 L.

See United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. dismissed, 389 U.S. 80 , 88 S.Ct. 253 , 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967).