# Appendix — Sims v. Western Steel Co.

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_2257%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1977
- **Citation:** 434 U.S. 858

## Text

— ——
a

IN THE *
Supreme Court of the United States

OcToBER TERM, 1977

No.
ued “122°
Roya W. Srus AND THE R. W. Sims Trust,

Petitioners,
v.

WESTERN STEEL CoMPANY,

Respondent.

APPENDIX E

Attachment to Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit

JouN A. YounG
Counsel for Petitioners

127 West Berry Street
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802
(219) 424-4947

Of Counsel:

Georce H. Specrarez, Esq.

O’ConneELL & STANSFIELD
Twelve Exchange Place
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
(801) 532-5835

— oy oor

| 22 2

CHIEF JUDGE—GRANDFATHER CLAUSE

HEARING

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMPROVEMENTS IN JUDICIAL MACHINERY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION
ON

S. 1130

A BILL RELATING TO CHIEF JUDGE—GRANDFATHER CLAUSE

MAY 18, 1976

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

+ tr
ivf

JAMES o. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska
EDWARD i masiinied eens
BIRCH BAYH, Indiana STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
QUENTIN x. BURDICK, North Dakota © CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, Ia, Maryland
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia WILLIAM L. SCOTT, Virginia

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas ROMAN L. HRUSEKEA, Nebraska
PHILIP A. HART, Michigan HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania
JAMES ABOUREZE, South Dakota WILLIAM L. SCOTT, Virginia
WILIA P. WesTrHat, Chief Counsel
aq)

CONTENTS

AN
4
*

a

RS

— ae

8. 1130

A BILL RELATING TO SERVICE AS CHIEF JUDGE
OF A U.S. DISTRICT COURT

TUESDAY, “MAY 18, 1976
. '

U.S. Senate,
SuscoMMITTEE ON IxcpROVEMENTS IN JUDICIAL
MACHINERY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

| : ‘Washington, D.C.
Zhe sabenmenities set, parsneat to.noticn, at 10 a.m., in room 6202,
Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Quentin N. Burdick (chairman of the
subcommittee ) swe .

Present : Senator Burdick Wedel.

Also present: William P. W. chief counsel; M.
Coulter, chief clerk; and Harry Dixon, staff of Senator
} 22 Mga 2 771 F a has scheduled a aa
ing on S. 1130, a o repeal the so-called grandfather clause w
exempted the existing chief judges of two-judge districts from the
statute which prohibits service as chief j beyond 70 years of age.
age limitation was enacted on August 6, 1958, there were
os n ee

t is understanding today only one e 32 chief yudyes

rer: He is Willis W. Ritter, the chief

judge ar the District of Utah. Judge Ritter was appointed to the
nch on October 21, 1949. N pot;

The subcommittee has received a number of letters on this bill,
both pro and con. These letters evidence a great interest in this legis-
lation; but because they present essentially hearsay or personal
Opinions. ee of the committee, will give them less
weight than the sworn testimony we will receive here today.

One of the letters which has been written by one Utah lawyer to
every member of the Judiciary Committee, reads as follows: “Tn all
fairness without regard to the judicial temperament or capacity or
integrity of Judge Willis W. Ritter, is there really legitimate reason
for having the only chief judge in the judiciary system over the age
e ’ Yo 2

In answer to question, a “legitimate reason” is that in 1958
a Federal statute provided that this judge, and 31 others, were ex-
empt from the ace 70 requirement. But this letter illustrates the reason
why I believe that before we receive the testimony of w ‘nesses, it
would be helpful if we can identify the specific issue ra.sed by S.
1130. ; a *

S. 1130 does not raise the issue of whether the judge should be re-
moved from judicial office; because under present law that issue can

(1)

only be decided after impeachment by the House of Representatives.
Nor does S. 1130 raise any issue concerning ible disability of the
judge, because section 372 of title 28 U.S. covers such a situation.
he issue, as I perceive it to be, is whether the judge in question, who

continues to serve as chief judge of the District of Utah by virtue of the
exception made by the Congress in 1958, is for some reason unable to
perform the duties of a chief judge in an effective and expeditious
manner, , ' aif ‘

If it can be demonstrated that he is unable to so perform, then the
subcommittee will have to make the further decision of whether re
of the grandfather clause is appropriate legislative action under all of
the circumstances, And, it seems to me, that one of those circumstances
involves the separation of powers yy trom which has grown the
phrase “independence” of members o Federal judiciary.

Cae Oe thar ee niie 08 intended ss any ruling by the Chair on

an

these or other issues, it has been put forth in to clarify the
matter before the subcommittee this ing.

A copy of S. 1130 will be included in the ing record at this time
without objection.

[The above referred to bill follows:]

IS. 1180, 94th Cong, Ist sess.} a
A BILL To amend the Act of A 4 72 Stat. 497 to chief
0 Anema ry BN, * relating to service as

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Oongress assembled, That section 8 of the Act of A 6, 1958
(72 Stat. 497), is amended by changing the tirst comms o a period by striking
all of the remainder of the sentence. ‘

Fee nar Row recognises thé junior Senator froi Utah who is the
principal of bill, and at whose request this hearing was
scheduled. r Garn, you may proceed, 9

Senator Ganx. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do have a
very lengthy statement with a la number of inclusions. I would like
to summarize the statement and ask that it be included in its entirety in
the hearing record and that all of the attachments, letters, and edito-
rials also be included in the record without me taking the time of the
subcommittee to read all of them.

r Burprcx. They will be so received without objection.
The above referred to statement with attachments follow :]

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAKE GaRN BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENTS
IN JUDICIAL MACHINERY or THE SENATE JupICIARY CoMMITTEE ON S. 1130

Mr. Chairman: Let me begin by expressing my personal gratitude to you for
ember greatly apprecia This hearing been sought for years
leading members of the Judicial Branch, the Bar, and concerned citizens, and

1 Some tion has arisen concerning the number of district court judges affected by

8. 1130. The Administrative Office of U tes Courts bas confirmed
that % Judge Willis Hitter of the’ dn ent, Bete tery ee be Piet 6
Utah will be the only affect

ed. Letter from R. Glenn Johnson, Chief, Division of
Personnel, to Jake Garn, 6, 1976.

i
i
if
|
ae
i
i

|

ig
lil
8 2 2
Lite
1
5
1
TH
7
iH

Euntze
e
e
1% 10
7 : 12 1 1753
ü
e
e
I i int
„ oat
e d.

755
ig
.
f

7

R i d e ee Bey e nt
i e iy i ie
e ume lag OE Ts
1 Cee Lo be Or ee
ll ' . : 11715 e 1115 f i
Pt e i
1e ap N l ll
e e e fea
i e
1 ae 1 i Hy : Fil i
eg i a e is lige = 11705 45
e
15 3233 3 2127371 BEIGE ill aif; 25 Re 151 28
e e
il! 111 2 Ul ie li f 135 1 i aati
427% l l 1 % !
% Garett a e
5 28811. 35 5 3
1 iii: Ri Waa EGG: i 110
77177 gate BS 8 1 bs tH 252 1 1525 353522 3 f ei 15 ; 5
LETT LL Pee Pee et LLL et eee yey eee
1 ia ile ill 1 00 i 0
5 2123 255222 2115 72335 7
Hie 1117115 f 7110, Ar fh i 17172 THE Wie :
10 EE 111 suis 1141 HE 1 2
ine i Eitel ie is Hie rial et

Ae 5 ene, e ene fi
e 1 11
ty 11 1 Hit at | eet He if
Fe n i i iH
| 0 ie aie , 10 t
11125 tik i i n ¢ ef! 1 0 + l
6•§5p a 1
MMF i ii
0 ii i 1 0 i 1 dae 00 . i i
Wa
i ih iv 1 1 5 ne fii 1227115 e
H 14
aie e
N a 5
. af 12 i ;
1 . . ii itt
ait BE e
e e 1 it tat
paneer etal tea

ik
42147 35 1221 2721512 33
l e e ee
Ue 15 eh Huet ay abe l Gb ya He
11 Ie 1 tel Ly ihe eto
2 1715 12 He 175 He 71 ral 3 1115 21 pe 11
1 1 1 ö i Hues
e ee iy 0
at hi 110 Brea eT 1
1 ff i a 4 te
1 55 i 15 11 e
15 177 nai ii isd fate i i HE
; N as! 171
UE if |
i il : i 3 185
111 1 i Wait
i tit i 1 itt i 4 25 1 Hit 01 en Ee
i 10 Ni ö 1161 laf Hue ell jue 5
n Hl | 1411 il 1411 15 ff ete 1% fi
ie 1 aati Hee
* 2 : 1 he 1
e iE e i 1 1 He
1 435 e 1 f
Pi e e
1 al Hage 1 1 1 a ae 11 15
i N Hi ‘ heli Het ta 155 12
11215842155 au 141 i 1

11

aks J Fe A l
11 1 th
hi Bikes le
e
1
fat
ve Gt Mir ete a}
i 1 1
0 i

il i i fll;

10

Grand Jury right

tape recorders from the entire Federal
dismissed a Federal
of what jurors called “a most important criminal investigation.”

defendants and witnesses who did not want

the panel into his courtroom and without explanation ordered
photographers and artists in his courtroom deserves further

comment because it ilustrates bis trestment of newsmen. The gap between the
City media, true to form, fearfully sidestepped any confrontation

d the press culminated in the celebrated “TV sketching case“ in 1973.

He abruptly
go home.
's ban on

ih

ust three years ago this month when a Salt Lake City
deast sketches of a trial underway in Judge Ritter’s court,
ern drawings. A few days later

j

uten axa
apparently in
re obi delthin batten bravatmal obnd themadives focinn a con.

citation was not pressed. But the sketching order
no one else could misunderstand its intent.

? What further
condition in
daho and the

correct it.

Idaho,

what
taken?
has been
for many
‘ 2 FAP - —
to 1 . . e H ien e, United States “Attorney for the District ot

PaRaNoia AND Pakapox ON THE F Bence ,
Willis W. Ritter has established a reputation as one
and frequently overturned jurists in American

“Chief Judge
of the most cantankerous
(By M.
the
Dress

21 AR
ber 3252

—

j
At
and
easily

tu-
tion’ . . . Censorship in any form—judicial censorship included—is simply in-
compatible with the dictates of the constitution and the concept of a free press.”

Judge Ritter made an interesting and humanitarian argument for his sketch-
ing ban. He suggested that people have a right to come to the court “without
being held up to degradation by grotesque representations of their physical
characteristics .. . and a constitutional right . . . to be free from being made a
public display of.” rs

His concern for the privacy and welfare of those who
may be ethically laudable, but it bardly stands as a legal right. There are neither
statutes nor case law that grant a “constitutional right” to be free of publicity
when you go before the federal courts. Even if one accepts the presumption that
all courtroom drawings are “grotesque representations” and subject a person
to “ridicule,” the laws of privacy and libel, as interpreted by the Supreme Court,
prevent recovery unless it can be shown that the statements or pictures are made
with actual malice.

The most telling argument against this order forbidding an artist from leav-
ing the courtroom, drawing the scene from memory and then having that sketch
televised is the First Amendment itself. ,

“A trial is a public event,” according to Justice William O. Douglas in a 1946
case. “What transpires in the courtroom is public property ... Those who
see and hear what transpires can report it with impunity. There is no special
perquisite of the judiciary which enables it, as distinguished from other in-
stitutions of democratic government to suppress, edit, or censor events which
transpire in proceedings before it.”

Since the person who draws in a courtroom can do so, if he desires, with little
more distraction to the participants than the person who takes pencil notes, it
is unnecessary that the physical act of drawing interfere with the proceedings.
The drawing is simply another technique for reporting court activities.

*

It is obvious that the gag order on sketches was not designed to protect from

to the administration of justice. It was directed at getting

privacy for the people coming to the courts and keeping the media out of the
province that the judge considered exclusively his.

That hardly justifies the prior restraint.

In contrast to the Utah media's example, one eastern newsman boldly delved
into Judge Ritter's alleged “ecumenical meanness.” Investigative reporter Joseph
Golden, formerly with the Philadelphia Inquirer and now a free-lance writer in
Washington, D.C., recently wrote a book entitled The Benchwarmers, in which

Ritter. In one chapter, Golden wondered if any of the jurists he had been
writing about would qualify for the title of “ultimate Expletive Deleted judge
of the Federal courts?”

“At one point I had decided that Judge Willis Ritter, the perpetual-fury
machine of Salt Lake City, deserved the honor,” Golden wrote. “Ritter’s bad
temper, however, seems to be fired by age and whiskey more than by innate
meanness and, as is true of any ricocheting object, he occasionally lands on the
right side of an issue. Let me say that again: Ritter sometimes makes a humani-
tarian decision, but maybe only because he is madder at the bad guys in the
case than he is at the good guys.”

And so Golden passed over Judge Ritter for the dubious “ultimate Expletive
Deleted” title and gave it instead to Judge Charles Carr of Los Angeles.

For many people in Utah, however, Judge Ritter has been in the process of
earning such a title ever since a series of heated Senate hearings in 1949 and
1950 ended in confirmation of his appointment by President Truman. Emotions
about the judge’s courtroom conduct have simmered behind the scenes for years
in the law offices in Salt Lake City, but it wasn t undi 1978 that the Utah State
Bar would publicly acknowledge there might be a problem. In that year, at the
association’s annual meeting in Provo, the public debate over Ritter's alleged
“irregular conduct” and supposed “bias” against certain lawyers began.

Calvin Behle, a well-known lawyer in Salt Lake City and then Utah delegate
to the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association, introduced a resolu-
tion to ask Congress to repeal the “grandfather clause” in the Judiciary Retire-
ment Act of 1958. This clause had initially been tacked onto the Act as an
amendment in the Senate, allowing Idaho Democratic Senator Frank Church’s
father-in-law to continue to serve as chief judge after retirement age. Under the
act, federal judges must retire from chief judge status at age 70, except then
incumbent chief judges in two-judge districts. Currently, Judge Ritter is the
only one left on the bench. If the clause is repealed, he would remain as a Federal
judge, but would have to relinquish his administrative powers, including the
power to assign cases. |

Behie’s resolution was adopted by a 2-to-1 margin. But only about 100 of the
Utah Bar's 1,383 members were at the convention. Some pro-Ritter lawyers were
enraged by the move.

“The entire business was carried out in a most sheddy and illegal manner,”
declared John J. Flynn, University of Utah law professor. “Such a procedure
would do credit to those who planned Watergate and is just as unfair, illegal,
and unethical.” He also called it a “sneaky, underhanded attack on the inde-

pendence of.a ederal j 5 :
. e peedlation
had been “improperly introduced” and declared the action in Provo to be “null
and void.” '

“They left me holding the bag,” Behle said, shaking his head. “They are
afraid because they have to plead cases before Judge Ritter.”

76-678 O- 77-2

in aid e eel Et ES
e e atl HME cen aes Gal tials
HATH l ai e e 20) Syl
tapes 1 72 1225 22145 7 2231 1885 J 21115 yi 1284771
e e e e ed jest ta Hat
715 Fa 2123777 : 2 1510 HEE 13725 17777 27275 273 ef
e Javan Base gee cet) Uliptl ea
Ir $55.3. 1 ii 329 222 2 22325 aE et ete

ny ibe A mei i ae epee
11 11 e
11117 1 15 e sibs ete agit stati
hh a ]
iF 11 741577 f a2
nil e e

Gee il i l due e l l HEE 12312 5
1 1 i . 1 j i i
„

M a a
Ey e oils ee e tpt
{i 1 : 1 0 i 0 g ie l
e e
e e e
e it ! in ata 1 i e jut
12 11 : 14 8 FE (henge 117725 i 5

17

ue eee pelo Hy ehe neu dina oe en e ee e. wou; Vn “AD e Wes e WOU] gene G e Ke Sem eee okt Canney”

N Ae pe
e ee ee:

0 0 0 00¹ z 0 0 0 00⁰¹ t 1
0 81 t 2. 51 0 E t 286 . s° “@ 02 08 *
z „ „ „ 6 t ee o „ „e m in 9p seen
ped a; eee =~ pesieney eee ped 1 5 6
1 1 eee eee eee eee eee petra . peyote: = poysed eipag

ö i e eu ce h —

_"

vin 30 Senf LOIISIO n 40 Su WO WW3ddv NO So Wi dA e 40 LBNOD 10009 AOE 30 SL-GHEI SOLASLIVIS 3ALLVEVENOD

——

Office,
greatly
another
by
REPORTER FOR
CHEF
—
a Ts
Corn Bg

——— 2

Sales, C

from the
“He is
Pak 1 to 1 — ast -
— —
PUBLISHED IN
WHICH TRIED

iy Saad Sale

=

Book Store
88
—
OF ALL CIVIL
O
ern — Of Co, 0: Gettin.

ee

HG ip Ht 11 5 1 pa ttt 11 Hint
1 i iy ie cael fel fad ta 1
alle fi 1 15 it 1117 cas Thatlt | 11 17 11
17 i 2 41 f J HOE Baty beaded 1 114 sia i i
lips dead fer Te ells la ane fy pat e PY
lite: tyeidt fH) UES ipa chet ee Pad ae
atid br: Ga 22 ee 14 1
i alsa US Pat UT ae ly

i HH PTH # 11 ig Sid
112 ieee! sf 11 15 1 111 i 11 155
a era 1 iH a 1 1 5 277755 Bal

Jupes Ritres: Tas Maw & Tue Mr

233 a 11 125
ile i: 1

lt

11 4% f. e Pepe al
ii 115 He 8
: 5

: ALE

And so the

an enigma, there’s no doubt about it,” con-

(by Elaine Jarvik)
portrait.
his eyes?
old
the face
the face.
bout the
big

One
that

a

refused to
“If you

the
wishes,
Willis
has
has wa
very
ts
was
with
father
school,
the mines
between th
t he
earned
of
to be
later,
the Uni
bachelor’s
SJD degree

can he be both compassionate and rude? He's
about ha. gi
“Why open
— asks the
~ + at all,”
“A very others.
portrait one brown
a smile and
not : phy,”
he But
daughter : editors con
to consequences,
his of his
about , Chief
That he at
Chinese fav
ded Ascent
this 24, 1899
his is
Utah, Ritter
he (
where on
t.
in high in the
in two
either or
hile a
terviews, tha law
th money he
niversity
school
already
tah
the U
Harvard

—

“You're
cedes a friend.

t

human and 76.”

The man will not sit for his
: “Wha
family
t tue
The

HTT Ears Beret
e

888 &

Hitze 43 l Uf UHL a
eee A
1 152 10 „ ! e i i 00 ital |
1155 i ö 14115 e J 1 1 : if if 5
1 e 1 HIBE
ze 222 S8 ees 227 9 32 y : 725 -
in e e
II b an Gl uit G
TTR eee e
it } 2 f ve 1223 oe: 3
1 7 1% 1 b
e
ff 3 15 TE 171375
Otay ay tn teers Bl 227215 W i he

14 e 1) A h gn
met il 1 Pel

i A 9 e aaa i

gu tli e e i

K aad Fina 1a in tae

vic = 112 2 yb 13 115 “ 182 . 8 1277 ih if
i jell 4d 1 |HE Hat

1 i} 3382 11121 15 5 ss 27 pil HE ; 5 6

% RN

15 2 ul: 17 HTH 5 15 pall; 7 ;
ah PEER one 1 ( i i

PT og HR a ee ee
Pit a Got de lela |
wig om Blanlik een
Wi hie e dalla dime I
gan? indie 8 nite all»
„ fi Bee | para is
1 dal ; f i 171 i 1 : HE
; a 8 HE 4 12 i Hi 245 17
es 7211 71 1 0 3 116 : a
i e i .
a e e ele il
1 we ai HE if lip 2970 14252205
e a ie HLF
i
b . ; tie, pe
1 10 i! 132 coe EE uh 1 1 “ft iH
Pe Lae a ery 1 EL 110
i eon rT 15 is
n tes gi Hi a li
e, e le
TGR He
HAE pei 211 l At 421
i l i h n eel it

8 3 425 7722772157777 J 4% AMI n .
13 8 25 “he 213 2225 E52 of Ses fie: 3 72 11 4
i 0 HT 0 bi 1 He
NL 1 ett 11 : gig 432 3583! 11 clits #8
pe e Gb a Geeta dl
e,, A ta
„„
el : 111755 15 775 f 135 11125 ir
ay boul sat ga Ge
e ie 3 #3285 goede, 12
1 1 i 5 1 jit! 26
fi pea 285 1 1 647 Le nll 1
nf 385 pera:
1 ETE fl 10 111 1 i i 115 1
a f 884178 fu a sta
eee
ba e ik 0 i 10 15
f Bee fal ee 1711
i 33 : 7 3155 pee i if | as 115 2 17 if ale E 1
%
112222755 n i 115 1252 yall
e al ai hea
171577 1 i 7 5 l AF Hin +
1 ta 85 16 i e
1237584432733 412252 1 125
e TTR LE

feof
in! i i
1 Lipa „
Ia 4 5 21 2 1 is 3 122 i 3 : : 8 i:
i i 13 3 5 2 1 48 1155 1 cr 1 2 : 1 z
2 2217 ae & 7 i 1 4 i : 5 1 8 15
22 3 117 1 721 : HHUE 111.
. it 1 |
f ii 4] aT 1165 g E 1 275 2 |
11 i 1 ji
: 1 a : 13 + g 0 tlie 2 37
A * 0 uF 1 25 e ay aT
10 . 1 1 1 0
11 § ö „ 1 eayE 1
1 3 i 11127 11 The
atthe Ht Poa oo
3 tel 8 E 1135 — 3%
pil: a . 247135 7
Daa a i i 5 il
l 772 1252 8 83 gs : ah
et onal 32 Hn : 25 Hi 35 TH
21 92% l 3811 » 1 8
5 1 f Hy ke 1 14 1 alay i
1 ae sates i 2
1 Ht) (ne 11 1
„ aint i i
328 147 * N | itl 885 8 A Hall 25 2
mie it ie 1
„ i He Fee
ay in i i 177115
j ‘ i 1 2 1 if! 5 i 12 N
1 i! mt n
me f f
e

3

Frs 8

i

*

ies :
a

8882

In view of the strong public policy expressed in the Act of August 6, 1958,
relating to the maximum permissible age for chief judges of federal district
courts, and my own experience before the United States District Court for the
District of Utah, it is my opinion and recommendation to the Subcommittee on
Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Senate Judiciary Committee that
the interests of justice will be served by the enactment of the subject bill which

has my unqualified support.
Respect

fully youre,
Jack L. CRELLIN,
Assistant Attorney General.

CANNON AND DUFFIN,
Arronxrrs at Law,
Salt Lake City, Utah, May 10, 1976.

Re Amendment to section 3 of the Acts of August 6, 1968, (72 Stat. 497) Hearing

set for May 18, 1976.

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE,
L. S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.

GENTLEMEN: My interest is in having the Committee act favorably on the
proposed amendment to the subject act.

It may be that my feelings might be dismissed as being biased and prejudiced.
At the hearing in Salt Lake City prior to the appointment of Judge Willis W.
Ritter, I appeared and testified that he did not have a judicious temperment and
therefore I was opposed to his appointment. Time has not change my opinion.
Noting those testifying in his behalf, one finds those who appear before him on
behalf of clients. Prudence would so dictate. Once I appeared before his court
after his appointment. I will never appear again. I feel clients of mine would not
be given judicious consideration. It is almost thirty years since he was appointed.
I have been in the federal court but once. That is a sad commentary on our
system. Not only have I felt limited, but my associates have felt it is a disadvan-
tage to be associated with me in our practice.

The law itself is unfair as it makes an exception. Everyone should play under
the same rules and especially in federal courts.

It is respectfully urged that the committee recommend passage of the pro-
posed amendment to have the law apply to all equally.

Respectfully yours,
T. QuenTIN CANNON.

MerepitH, Barner & Day,
ATTORNEYS aT Law,
Salt Lake City, Utah, May 7, 1976.

Re The Honorable Willis W. Ritter, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the District of Utah.

Hon. Jake Gaky,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

Dran Senator Garn: I have been informed that the Senate Judiciary Com-
mittee is contemplating hearings related to the repeal of the Grandfather Clause
under which the Honorable Willis W. Ritter retains his position as Chief Judge
of our District.

Though I am philosophically opposed to congressional tampering with the
bench, I am in full agreement that the Grandfather Clause should be repealed
solely because it will effect the status of the Honorable Willis W. Ritter and
298 of justice which is dispensed by the United States District Court

n *

I have had significant experience before the Honorable Willis Ritter and
have many times witnessed the arrogant, tyrannica), arbitrary, aud insulting
manner in which Judge Ritter conducts his court and treats the individuals
who appeared therein. Of particular concern to me is the manner in which the
calendars of trials and events are conducted in that court and the fact that
Judge Ritter does not conduct either trials or rule days on a regular basis, but
seems to hold the entire legal community of the District of Utah at his beck and
call and exercises his apparent prerogative to demand immediate appearance

78-678 O- 77-3

11 5 aii! i: i
1 2 a : Hi 238 1525
S Mr 15 11 1 11 ox ahs 17517 117
1 uh i 1 4 1 Hn i i
Fao s * 5 sf, oF 23 3 gobs 3113 *
HL ahaa Ft 1% ee f
A : HF 713 88 1. 11 1 12
iit e ee a i
i 89 111 F 155 4 8883525 2 5 aE 123 & £5 22 5
italy 117 1 11 11 17 rH 1 e bs
: 1 alii 8 11 17117 ui 123
f 1125 2 7 8155 : -— 43 18 1 127
Ae ati TL bi 2
188235 ie 32227 27 E shal
e e
e
3 3 i
i 12185 32 3715 ö
zT 21
0 i 1 b
e 1 Eh i 1 fi 1 ile i
aii 221112247 i; 2 117575 41411725 127475 a
e ey et 1 0
7 5 21175 f gives 1275 25 5 TM . 35285 Ee irs
aa ß a
i f eee
111775 12527 5 t ili 24 Ar eat 725
171123211121 241415 1 18 ik; 11 5 175
K HE ili MIE 1 i
aunts 121233 i
kli 11112157 i f
7115

chief judges re ish that role at age 7., so today the facts com
d — 1 this grandfather —

and acceptable. I have also agreed with the distinguished chairman
that they ought not to be reneged except under unusual circumstances,

to see this particular clause revoked because this
enough facts to classify it as “unusual.”
The foll facts and policies have convinced me that S. 1130

S. 1130 ought to because the same organizations that supported
the original act and its amendments now support of the clause
of exception. Who were those . supported H.R. 985
in 1957 and 1958 The Judicial Conference, the American Bar Asso-
ciation, the Department of Justice: The most objective, deliberative,
and influential entities of the American judicial system. What organ
zations now 1 S. 1130 The Aale
Conference believes that this exception . . has outlived

Kirks, director, administrative office of the United States Courts to
Carl Albert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, September 21,

1973— it’s added to this statement—and also a letter of confirmation

; of the American Bar Association
has taken no specific stand on repeal of the clause, it is believed that
2 has not changed from 1957 when it a bill iden-
tical to H.R. 985, as introduced, with a relinqui date at age
70 years and without a “grandfather clause.” The committee on the
Federal Judiciary said, “Your committee is of the view that this
rogue that the eworef Seisgater aiope the restate schorne
the resolution i
(the identical bill).”
The House of

leaders of the bar and bench in calling for its passage.
Chief Judge David T. Lewis of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
10th Circuit says:

ͤ——I— —— ne ek ee es Be =

——

Governor Calvin L. Rampton—whom I’m sure you know, Mr, Chair-
man—elected three times as Governor of Utah and probably the most
popular governor in the history of the State of Utah, said:

I feel IS. 1130) should be passed. If it were passed, in my opinion it would
result in improved administration and supervision of the calendar in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah. Whether the “grandfather” clause was
ever justified from a standpoint of principle is questionable. Undoubtedly, it
was adopted as a matter of expediency to facilitate the passage of the act.
However, if it were ever justified now that there is only one judge serving
pursuant to the “grandfather clause” and he is a substantial number of years
beyond. the cut-off age, the continuation of the “grandfather principle” can no
longer be justified.

This was a letter from Governor Rampton to me on May 10, 1976.

Erwin N, Griswold, former Solicitor General of the United States,
Says:

‘The situation with respect to the Chief Judge in the U.S. District Court in
Utah is unique, and I think, unfortunate.

The basic policy—namely, that a judge shall cease to be a Chief Judge upon
reaching the age of 70—is sound, as has been shown by a great deal of experience
in our judicial system. It is quite unwarranted, it seems to me, to have a special
provision in our statutes which makes this policy inapplicable in a single case.
The time has clearly come, in my opinion, when that exception should be re-
pealed, and the same rule should be applicable in Utah as in all of the other
States of the Union.

The Utah State Bar has gone on record twice favoring repeal of
this “grandfather clause.” On January 11, 1974, a resolution was
passed at the midwinter meeting of the bar authorizing a secret poll
of the bar ip concerning this issue—77.7 percent of those
res ing favored repeal.

imilarly, at the midwinter meeting in January 1976, the Utah
State Bar passed a resolution by a vote of 106 to 62 stating “. .. the
official action of those members of the Utah State Bar assembled
is affirmed to be in favor of S. 1130.”

S. 1130 ought to be because its would not frustrate
congressi policy intent as established in 1957 and 1958. We must
remember that H.R. 985 passed both the House and the Senate with-
out the “grandfather clause” and was apparently acceptable to both
bodies. for over a year until the bill was reconsidered and amended
for political reasons.

It is true that the bill as by both Houses (before reconsid-
eration) contained a relinquishment age of 75 years, but the *
chief judge in the Federal District Court for Utah is 77 years old,
having been born January 24, 1899, and would have had to re-
—— 2 ip nearly 2½ years ago even if the more
8 of ill had been sigaed without the “grandfather

Unfortunately, that version passed both Houses without being
signed. I caution us against assuming that S. 1130 will frustrate the
intention of the 85th Congress. It will not, as the record shows.

S. 1130 should pass because the poli

forecasts Senator
Eastland in 1958 for adoption — 2

udge
as follows. I will skip over that and have it included in

BE
90
8
8
75

This is a minimum standard of conduct, I believe. The ideal would
be an expectation that any judge so protected and exempted would
maintain exemplary standards of conduct. Congress can reasonably
expect that when it carves out a special exemption in the law for a
certain class of persons that those persons act in a manner consistent
with their special legal status. 50 f |

If “exemplary” conduct is too high a standard. then it is reason-

judges,
it t to maintain that exem the
jude in — bahente, te —
pacity as chief judges and im their capacity as active Federal judges.
I believe the standard of conduct as to the chief judgeship is self-

r ö
— 2 — t —

ing whether a
.
uty to vileges N
— — 2 2 7 —
that performance in one area cannot be separated from performance

in the other.
What kind of ing is it which tat a special one-man

exemption should be continued after it has been shown that the only

— ———— -

— ee

—

and judicial sufficiency has crumbled from Willis W. Ritter.
if, indeed, they ever did—why this
| else. W. —— — *
everyone e yearn for an treatment,
ith judicial fairness.
items that fill my files from letters from
of mistreatment in his court to editorials.
Ogden, Utah Standard-Examiner editorial-
Has Come for Federal Judge Willis W. Ritter to Step
I will skip over all of these examples and not take the
time of the them.
Even books have been written about J Ritter. I will just read
rom Joseph C. Goulden, author of a recent book on Federal
judges. He said, after discussing J udge Ritter for several pages, “At
one point I had decided that Judge Willis Ritter, the perpetual-fury
machine of Salt Lake City, deserved the honor [of ultimate expletive
deleted judge of the F courts]. Ritter’s temper, however,
seems to be fired by age and whiskey more than by innate meanness
and, as is true of any ricocheting object, he occasionally lands on the
ight side of an issue.” eh
kinds of points are made over, and over, and over in
letters and in newspapers and now in books. It's time we no longer
reward such behavior with special “grandfather” protection. This is
the e ype: gpa unt age epee
Mr. irman, what more can be said? Who else needs to speak?
What further actions need to be taken? How much more time needs to

|

cee
a
a
i
i

l.

5
|

ue
5
1

l ee

He would like to say a brief comment before I start and then I have
a statement.

Senator Burpicx. Have ‘ees

The Reporter. No—Giuliani

Senator Burvicx. We want the names for the Reporter at the con-
clusion of the hearing, if you can give them then.
r 2

Senator Bunbick. Fine. Gentlemen, nae brief as possible
because we have a Joint Session today at 12:30, but proceed in any way
ou wish.
1 Mr. GrotluAxl. My name is Rudolph W. Giuliani, G-i-u-I-i-a-u-i. I
. General. Mr. Chairman, we will be

very brief. And just like to say a few things to place in context

before Mr. Child’s testimony. en
We're here from the of Justice to testify in of

S. 1130 to repeal the “grandfather clause” of Public Law . The

rationale of law is simply that, as a rule, the Congress has
determined that it is inconsistent with the public interest for a

to do double duty past the age of 70—that is, to do duty as both a dis-
trict judge handling a civil and criminal case and to preside as
an administrative judge over Federal *

In the 18 years since that statute was e
chief judge's duty namely, presiding over Federal trials and also
administering a court have become much more com licated, due,
No. 1, just to the sheer increase in the number of cases, both civil and
criminal], that have been filed in the U.S. courts, and even more impor-
tantly, because of the complexity of those cases.

Criminal law has changed significantly over that 18-year period
and has become significantly more complex. The civil cases that are
b t have also me more complex, so that the original rationale
for general rule is now underscored and emphasized by the sheer
increase In numbers and, more importantly, by the increase in com-
plexity of the kinds of cases that a Federal judge must preside over
and the kind of court he has to administer.

Mr. Child’s pare. ges will present a practica] example of the wis-
dom of this general rule enacted by Congress 18 ago. There’s
no doubt that in application a general rule like this, saying that a
judge cannot serve in both capacities past oe of 70, may, in cer-
tain circumstances, deprive Government of the effective service
* who, past the age of 70, who can, in fact, effectively do both
1

S les that will be

given by Mr. Child, however, show us the other side of the picture
and show us the wisdom of this rule, that in J Ritter’s
case, he has demonstrated, inly since the of statute
— coke; namely, le — A
orm roles; namely, sit as a tri complicated
Beeten Federal eee bach tivll ee
a court calendar.
So that now I will turn over to Mr. Child for him to present to
’ of Ritter cannot both roles and
why this the clause” now that
it only affects Judge Ritter. Mr. Child.

STATEMENT OF RAMON M. CHILD, US. DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

Mr. Cup, If it please this Committee and Honorable Chairman,
my statement is largely directed to criminal matters and is divided
four areas: one, the manner in which Judge Ritter cases
his court, I the central division of the U States Court
223 erie Chapaasp sapmareer raleset court, 1
udge Ritter uses “trailing calendar” system with very litt
advance notice to counsel of that calendar. During the last few years,
the af Salo) aplendarn ant np bythe ehiat paige coch year has
declined. consequently, ial calendar contained a large
number of cases for trial.

On Friday, December 12, 1975, late in the afternoon, my office re-
ceived notice of a criminal trial calendar to commence at 10 o’clock
a. m. on Thursday, December 18th, 6 days before Christmas. On that
calendar, 23 cases had been set for trial. Three of the first four cases
were tax cases involving approximately 100 witnesses, many of whom
resided out of the State of Utah. 1

During this period of time in December, 1975, United Airlines was
on strike. Christmas holiday traffic vated the situation. Con-

Four cases were dismissed outright because the Government did
not have its witnesses present. All four of those cases are now on
appeal. In one of those cases, the court was informed by Government
counsel that the case could be ready by the time it was reached on the
following Monday. Notwi ing the fact that this case was No.
S The case is reached now,“ and

iu
171
*
115
2 285
ef
af

i
i
15
1
;
5
:

Tip
sit?
10
1
i
hy
42
spe
275

j

t
He
i
i
i
2

E
H
i
if
FF
ie
15

|
38 39 8
the cases are dismissed. Judge Ritter does not hold rule da he spent the better part of 1 year before his case was
is, days upon which arrsignimeste will be taken or motime Lean n pert i 4 +
cases on a regular or even a frequent basis. I move to poi 2 now: failure of the court to fully utilize the U.S.
The last criminal rule day in the district of Utah was January 16 istrate: In the District Court of Utah, the US. Magistrate
of this year. There are presently 32 cases involving 46 defendants has been utilized very little. Several Federal agencies have made
awaiting t in the central division. Of defendants, to the court that the U.S. Magistrate be utilized for the
Sa ee ; Ker ned or served with summons and bound over sedorcement of minor offenses, but their requests have not been
or arraignment a imi hearing before the magistrate. 0 granted N 1 3 spl
However, none of these defendants has yet been formally charged Since 1970, each U.S. Attorney has made similar requests of the
in an information or indictment. court. Recently, I also made a uest that the U.S. Magis-
No indictment has been possible during this riod because of the trate be more y utilized for the effective enforcement of minor
chief judge’s refusal to convene a grand jury. No information could : offenses. That request was su by letters of request and afli-
be filed or pleas taken during this period use of the chief judge’s davits of need from the heads of nine Federal agencies in the State of
failure to schedule court time for the conducting of such business. Utah. : is peti
Furthermore, at present 23 defendants have been formally charged Based upon past history, however, I have little that this peti-
bY T er or information and await arraignment in the central tion will be granted ——— anding 3 know that the
f second j in the iet is nen. i
ifs 90 day bine instances, the chief judge has failed to meet the Although he refuses to delegate trial authority, Chief Judge Ritter
specific 30-day time requirement of section 2(a) of the interim plan resists hearing minor offenses and abuses the government tor
for achieving prompt disposition of criminal cases in the district when such cases are filed with the court. For — nee pa of
the requirement —— judge adopted pureuant to 1975 under the tenure of William Lockhart, a man charged with the
The 8 7 — ; — of criminal procedure. offense of — entrance on a military reservation appeared
Judge's t hearing motions to dismiss ore Judge Ritter — — t. f .
or suppress until the time of trial. That means he defers a ruling on a —— excerpts the transcript of that proceeding
motion until after a jury has been picked and sworn, thereby causing demonstrate the j attitude toward | dling petty offenses in
jeopardy to attach and thus depriving the government of its right to the district court. After some preliminaries, the court says, “What
“ppeal an adverse „ kind of petty offense was it! We don't entertain those petty offenses
. chief judge m ea statement in a recent case wherein he ad- up there on the reservation. How did that one get in here?
mitted that his purpose in delaying pretrial motions until after the And again, the court said, “I don’t think this case will last very
jury was sworn was to make ce that jeopardy attached so the uick. I think it will go out the door with wheels under it. The
vernment couldn't appeal. The instance is cited in my statement. clerk then is askéd to take the plea and he says, “How do you plead
‘Upassover it, i to the information, guilty or not guilty?” And the defendant says,
uently the rights of those defendants who are in custody have “Not guilty.” And court then responds: “Good. That’s what you
been abused by the delays caused by the court. One of the more shout do. There’s a question whether I’m going to handle it or not.
serious problems faced by the U.S. Office during the term of William T may throw it out. I don’t take these petty offenses, see. The mili-
Tockhart, my predecessor was the inability to bring in custody de- ta there d to run that reservation. They ores
fendants to trial before Chief Judge Ritter within a reasonable time Wide they d out they can’t run it, at that ret mirage
2 ing three . me with respect to traffic they can’t tr he At
ollowing © cases are to onstrate the problem. 80 want me to be a traffic policeman, t examiner, an
One Rudy and one Kirkendahl were both charged with armed bank 00 J 50 fines that sort of busizess. T'm not going to do it. It looks to
robbery invol 1 incidents. Rudy was arrested on Septem- me like this thing not to be here.“
ber 23, 1974, rkendahl was arrested December 1, 1974. Kar The prosecutor then tried to explain to the court that this was a
Smith was incarcerated on August 28, 1974, after being charged compli situation where the man had been given a bar letter,
in an interstate bank fraud and he, too, was being held in custody after he had been caught selling narcotics on the military reservation,
under a high bond. n and in violation of the bar letter had come on the reservation.
ee repeated oral requests from U.S. Attorney ‘ And so the prosecutor said, “I felt, your honor, that the petty offense
Judge Ritter did not set these cases for trial until March 3, 1975. justified the court’s attention under the circumstances.”
at which time he set all three cases for trial on the same day, giving r lea is not guilty. That's a proper
. 1 working day notice é plea in this case and we'll look at your cards when we get it on the
defendant Kirkentahl nites us ee his trial, while calendar. N chances are that you won't have a big enough
- more t Smith hand to stay in the game.
Ritter iet den March 11, 1975, after waiting 7 months in jail. Judge When this case came before the court for rial, he allowed the prose-
also postponed Smith’s sentencing until July 11, 1975, and cutor to put on his case and then dismissed it. need for an effec-
i

40

tive method of ing minor offenses i cates N
readily apparent. Utah has within its l
Federal — including a veteran’s — st 11 —

In recent review of the need for better e orceme the mino
* * * enf ir

. —.— aa Utah, it was disclosed: First, 1 is —
Federal buildings ana 5 traffic and parking infractions at
of minor offenses in tribal
u occurring within Indian reservations have gone without sanc-

imated that over 250 cases in 1975 uld handled through
r if that — — and fifth
—— be — tary installations in Utah, many traffic offenses com-
—.— ctounilitary Personnel and minor offenses involving t
eos from the Government are committed —— —

Foc ment sanction because of the lack of an app — —
— or = ey roe the enforcement mechanism — in all of the
— he — — core is that of a fine or forfeiture of

assistance of the U.S. magistrate who oversees the collection af nns

At the present time, there is in the - 2

e . ’ 4 1 3
TT
n ury sel term and to prohibit Judge Ritter 2
convened. 4 * or discharging the grand jury once it is

This action was filed with
On April with the court of ap on
8 peels Sag 20, 1976.

Government’s mandamus acti

i i ion b .

Judge Ritter issued an order for the empan Al 3 On April 22,

Cineait smpancles on May 10. The Court of Appeals f ury and
retained jurisdiction on the subject of w or 18

met to investi erim
1971, a grand jury sat for 5 da ing 1910 8 ertad e
vened onl i day. A grand jury wae ‘ — * ot alts ne 1978

During 1974, i
sat fo only 56 dpa Jury sat only 15 days. During 1975, 4 grand jury

Chief Judge Ritter has —
cember 4, if, unt the ft of the Pe, sean, Sury trom De-

41

and this situation existed even though du ing that period four de-
fendants refused to waive their constitutional right to indictment.
‘And in court when they are arraigned, he will try to press them to
waive that ri and criticize their attorneys for not so advising them.

Because of the lack of a grand jury in the central division of the
district of Utah, these four defendants could not be indicted nor
I On January 23 of this year, pursuant to rule 6 of the

ederal Rules of Criminal Procedure, I filed a motion requesting that

a d jury be empaneled.
ored 1 the court until finally I filed the man-

damus proceeding. Such conduct on the part of Judge Ritter is

of a long, but consistent history of actions taken by the judge which

have frustrated the d jury process.

On February 10, 1975, at the request of U.S. Attorney William Lock-
hart, the Court convened a grand jury. Shortly thereafter, the Anti-
trust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. At-
torney’s Office commenced presenting cases to that grand jury. Some-
time during the early part of April of 1975, Judge Ritter told US.
Attorney khart that the court was going to discharge the grand

jury.

4 order to salvage the work of that grand jury, which was then
ongonig, Mr. Lockhart to the entry of an order by the court
limiting the function and scope of the grand jury. On April 25, 1975,
Judge Ritter executed an order which limited the matters the Govern-
ment could present to the grand jury to four specified investigations,
including two antitrust — —

Thereafter, the judge often threatened in open court to oe the
grand jury. The antitrust investigation was halted when Judge Ritter
refused to sign immunity orders and when he ordered that other im-
munity orders, si , but not yet served, be returned to him.

The testimony of the 14 witnesses covered by the immunity orders
was essential to the grand jury continued investigation into price
fixing in the District of Utah. The grand jury had already heard over
10 days of testimony from over 20 witnesses. Gevernment attorneys
assisting the grand jury had ex nded approximately 2,000 hours
working on that 1 including analyses of more than 250,000
subpenaed documents. United States filed a petition for writ of
mandamus with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on November 25
seeking an order to ire J Ritter to sign the immunity orders.
By reason of the court’s declared intention to dismiss the grand jury,
on December 4, 1975, I filed a motion requesting the grand jury be
allowed to continue to sit to conclude its business.

That motion also asked the court to lift the restrictions imposed in
the April 25 limiting order. Notwithstanding the plea made by the
Government, and over the pen of the grand jury foreman, Judge
Ritter discharged the grand jury while it was still investigating fraud
we — matters and — 3 it still 1 * 8 7 to be He

convening a grand jury in , the ju qui e
U.S. Attorney to submit to the court a list of those individuals who
were to be investigated. Such conduct, together with the limitation
order of April 25, constitutes an interference with the functions of the
executive branch and with the processes of the grand jury. 2

My final point is that Chief Judge Ritter uses his powers in a
manner adverse to the legitimate interests of the Federal Govern-

rT ar rr ov vw
2
nd ee A

the criminal

those two would have Judge

y thank this

#97), RELATING To
COURT. ON MAY 18, 1076

— —

Distriet Cou
the authority of t
of cases in that

Company v. Ritter, 461 F. 2d 1100 (C. A. 10, 1972). But that partial solution gives
no relief at all to the remaining Division presided over by the Chief Judge.
I am acutely aware of the seriousness that does, and should, attend a recom-

lso wish your Committee to understand tha following presentation is

the Tax Division by successive United
8 Attorneys and their assistants and y attorneys of our own staff who
have either supervised or tried tax cases in the District of Utah. However, most
of the events related hereinafter happened in open court or are reported in pub-

lished cases,
Gag r „ eee eee
1) the refusal to call grand juries for extended of time, resulting in
running of the statute of limitations in tax cases and siiemp.s by

(2) a continued pattern of dismissal of indictments after the trial has com-
menced, jeopardy has attached, and the Government is without recourse by

:

(5) setting large numbers of cases for trial on the same date and refusing
to indicate in what order the cases will be called for actual trial, setting multiple

hearings on short notice and reaching decisions without permitting argument;

and
(6) last, but not least, for the dignity of a court and the treatment of its
officers are of prime importance to our judicial system: an extended pattern

ordered him not to
8. 470 (1971),

aa ee
p

(2) The Supreme Court held os States v. Jorn,
that, where the court dismissed the information after
the case could not be retried even though (page 487) the trial judge “made no
effort to exercise sound discretion.” In that criminal tax case, the Chief Justice,
in a concurring opinion, characterized the actions of the Chief Judge of the
District of Utah as representing a “plain frustration of the right to have this
case tried, attributable solely to the conduct of the trial judge.” The dissenting
Justices said (p. 488) that they could not agree that when a trial judge abuses
—— ee on his own motion that a trial on the merits

oreclosed.

Since Jorn, there has been a pattern of dismissal of indictments and infor-
mations after the commencement of trial and there is no recourse for the Govern-
ment under present law. In January 1976, in United States v. Cloyd H. Hepworth
(Cr. 75-102), the Government sought to introduce evidence of the usual type
in criminal tax cases. The court refused to admit the evidence and then dis-
missed the indictment on the ground of the Government's failure to produce
evidence. The Government, of course, had no recourse. No written order was
issued in the case, Recently, after a nontax case had been disposed of in similar
fashion, counsel for two other defendants moved for dismissal of the indict-
ments as to their clients on the grounds that the charges were similar to those
just dismissed. The United States Attorney's office advises us that the Chief
Judge then took these attorneys to task, stating, in effect, that it was the
practice of the court to dismiss the indictment after the case goes to trial so

:
:
Fs

44

it appears to mean, then the policy of dismissal of indictments after the com-
mencement of trial is not merely to be inferred from a pattern of events, but
is a professed policy.

(3) and (4). In addition to the Hepworth case, the court did not allow in 1973
clearly admissible evidence in United States v. Stout (Cr. 48-72) and refused
to give the standard instructions in criminal tax cases. In United States v.
Corbett (Cr. 75-75), another criminal tax case, the court refused to give the
usual instructions or, indeed, any instructions other than to tell the jury that
the defendant had appeared to rely on another person. In both cases, the lack
of the usual instructions and comments to the jury weighted toward the de-
fendants resulted, in the views of the prosecutors, in the acquittals.

(5) It is repeatedly reported to us by the Office of the United States Attorney
and attorneys of our own Division that as many as 40 cases are set for trial
on the same date without stating the order in which the cases will be tried; that
if the parties are not ready to go to trial, the case is sometimes dismissed or
the parties are forced to go to trial without key witnesses. This, of course,
takes up the time of attorneys for both sides and incurs additional costs by
having the witnesses appear and reappear. More seriously, it interferes with the
orderly administration of justice. On occasion, hearings are set with very little
notice, with resettings, then counsel is sometimes given no chance to be heard
after multiple appearances. This has been particularly burdensome on Govern-
ment attorneys travelling from Washington, D.C., to Utah.

(6) Successive United States Attorneys have reported to us that the Chief
Judge has barred certain Assistant United States Attorneys from his courtroom.
At times between the years 1967 and 1973, the then United States Attorneys re-
ported that two of their four assistants were barred at times, and that this
caused a great hardship on a small office. Successive United States Attorneys,
their Assistants, and other Government attorneys have reported that the Chief
Judge used abusive and threatening language to them in open court.

The effect of the combined course of conduct described above has been to
prevent the Government from carrying out its duty to enforce the criminal tax
laws fairly and effectively in the Central Division of the District of Utah presided
over by the Chief Judge. In connection with our supervision of criminal tax
cases, it was brought to our attention that the Chief Judge had dismissed mail
fraud charges against Thomas Dee Stoker (Cr. 86-70, USDC Utah) and issued a
restraining order against prosecution of that individual in Wyoming on similar
but different charges (Cr. 8543, USDC Wyo.) after the defendant brought a pro-
ceeding back in Utah. The United States District Court for the District of
Wyoming ordered the trial to proceed and the defendant was convicted. The
Chief Judge of the District Court for Utah then issued an order to the United
States Attorneys for Utah and Wyoming to show cause why they should not be
held in contempt. We understand the snow cause matter was not pursued.

It should be noted that this pattern of conduct has extended through several
administrations, indicating that politics and personalities have nothing at all
to do with the problem.

The Government’s difficulties before the Chief Judge of the United States
District Court for the District of Utah have by no means been limited to criminal
cases. For example, in one civil tax case, the Chief Judge was reversed five
times by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Portland Cement Company
of Utah v. United States, 293 F. 2d 826; 315 F. 2d 169; 338 F. 2d 798; 378 F. 2d
91; 412 F. 2d 894).

The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, as shown in h-Idaho S
Company case cited above, has done what it can to limit r dpeeatiee
cally. We strongly urge the passage of S. 1130 as a solution to many of the
problems in the United States District Court for Utah. Even if this situation
did not exist, we would recommend the enactment of S. 1130 as removing an
outmoded exception to the general rule, the wisdom of which has been demon-
strated in the course of almost two decade : that judges over 70 years of age should
be relieved of the administrative burdens of the United States District Courts
and the United States Courts of A

Thank you for permitting me to submit this statement.

Mr. O’Brten. Copies have been submitted previously.
Mr. Cup. Mr. Chairman, my reading of my statement deleted many
parts and I hope the entire statement is received.

45

Senator Burnicx. Your full statement will be received in the record.

Mr. Cato. Thank you. .
[The above referred to statement with appendixes follows :]

STATEMENT oF RAMON M. CHILD, UnrTep States ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF
UTAH TO THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENTS IN JUDICIAL MACHINERY, OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE UNT STATES SENATE

It is not a pleasant task to criticize the work of an important man ; however, I
have been requested to briefly outline for this sub-committee the problems the
United States Government, and in particular the Department of Justice, must
face because of the manner in which the Honorable Willis W. Ritter, Chief Judge
of the District of Utah, administers his court and cases. My statement is largely
directed to criminal matters and is divided into four areas: (1) the methods
utilized by the Chief Judge to process his cases through court and resulting de-
lays; (2) the failure of the Chief Judge to implement a magistrate system which
would permit the magistrate to try minor offenses and to establish a collateral
system; (3) a description of the way in which the Chief Judge has administered
grand juries over the last five years; and (4) a brief description of the effects of
hostility demonstrated by the Chief Judge towards cases in which the United
States is a party.

I. THE MANNER IN WHICH JUDGE RITTER PROCESSES THE CASES THROUGH HIS COUBT

A. Calendaring of Criminal Cases for Trial

In the Central Division of the United States Court for the District of Utah
there are no published Rules of Court. Chief Judge Ritter does not set criminal
cases for trial at the time of arraignment nor does he give the usual 30 to 60 days
notice. The Chief Judge rarely sets less than 20 cases for trial on any one calen-
dar. That is, he uses the “trailing calendar” system.

During the last few years the number of trial calendars set up by the Chief
Judge each year has declined. Consequently each trial calendar has contained a
large number of cases for trial. It becomes an almost impossible task to prepare
20 to 30 criminal cases for trial when the government is given only a week’s no-
tice and often only two or three days’ notice.

Because a large number of criminal cases were backlogged for trial, on Au-
gust 1, 1975, I sent a memorandum to Judge Ritter advising him that there were
36 criminal cases awaiting trial and eleven criminal cases awaiting arraignment,
including at least twoJimportant stock fraud cases (Exhibit 1). Upon inquiry
from the Chief Judge as to when the government could be ready to try the two
stock fraud cases, a subsequent memorandum was sent to the Judge on Sep-
tember 17, 1975, wherein I informed the court we could be prepared to try the
cases on October 6, 1975 (Exhibit 2). Prior to that I had informed the court that
in view of the large number of witnesses in the stock fraud cases we would need
at least two or three weeks lead time to assemble those cases for trial. There
were aproximately 130 witnesses involved in three of those stock fraud cases. On
September 22, 1975, at 5:15 p.m. I received a memorandum from Chief Judge
Ritter which stated that the two stock fraud cases would be tried commencing
September 29, 1975, at 10:00 a.m. (Exhibit 3). It is of significance that these cases
— being tried by Fraud Section attorneys who were residing in Washington,

On Friday, December 12 1975, late in the afternoon, my office received notice
of a criminal trial calendar to commence at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, December
18, 1975 (Exhibit 4). On that calendar 23 cases had been set for trial. Three of
the first four cases were tax cases involving approximately 100 witnesses, many
of whom resided out of the state. During this period of time in December 1975,
United Air Lines was on strike, which created difficulty in getting people from
one place to the other in this country. Christmas holiday traffic aggravated the
situation as well. Consequently, on Monday, December 15, 1975, I filed a motion
with the court requesting that we be given 21 days to prepare for that trial
calendar and informing the court of the tremendous difficulty we would have in
prepa and serving subpoenas and in securing witnesses on such short
notice (Exhibit 5). Nevertheless, on Thursday, December 18 Judge Ritter held
a call of the trial calendar. We had been able to get ready on only a couple of
cases. Four cases were dismissed outright because the government did not

78-678 O-77-4

a 30-case calendar was to commence October 21, 1975 (Exhibit 10). On November
1, 1974, the government received a calendar which contained 31 criminal cases
to commence on November 4, 1974 (Exhibit 11). On May 21, 1974, the government
received a criminal calendar containing 19 cases to commence on May 28,
1974 (Exhibit 12).

Often when the cases are not ready because of the inability of the govern-
ment to secure attendance of witnesses within the time noticed, the cases are
dismissed. A typical example of this was the case of United States v. Win
Henry Savage, CR-75-26. Ihe case was noticed October 20, 1975, for trial on
October 21, 1975 (Exhibit 13). The government filed a motion for continuance,
which Chief Judge Ritter ignored (Exhibit 14). Judge Ritter dismissed the
case on October 22, 1975, because the government had not been able to locate
its witnesses (Exhibit 15). I have a staff of six assistants, but on a 20 to 30-case
calendar, often we are talking upwards of 200 to 400 witneses to be subpoenaed
and secured. Moreover, the attorneys need time to prepare their cases. Many
cases, because of their complexity, merit definite trial dates. While I recognize
that trailing calendars are used in some other courts, they are not used
such short notice. Further, most courts do not sandwich complicated stock

tax fraud cases in the middle of a trailing calendar as does Judge Ritter. You
can perhaps recognize the difficulty in trying a complicated tax fraud case
involving as many as one hundred witnesses in the mi of a calendar where

that same attorney is required to try drug cases, theft from interstate ship-
ment cases, and cases involving violence on an Indian Reservation.

B. Law and Motion Days

Judge Ritter does not hold rule days at which time defendants are arraigned,
on a regular or even frequent basis. The last criminal rule day in the District
of Utah was January 16, 1976.

It is axiomatic that effective administration of criminal justice demands
that court machinery function swiftly. The present state of the Central Divi-
sion criminal calendar is evidence of the prejudice to both the defendant and
the government caused by delays in the calendaring of cases.

There are presently 32 cases involving 46 defendants awaiting arraignment
in the Central Division. Of these defendants, 23 have either been arrested or
served with summons and bound over for arraignment after preliminary hear-

cases exceed the 60-day
the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. § 8164 (b). However, § 3161(b) does not take
effect until July 1, 1976, and the Interim Plan for Prompt Disposition of Criminal

* ).
The Chief Judge Lad just ruled against the government in a case involving a
on an Indian Reservation

counsel, in a following and similar case, to wit: United States v. Gerald
Mountainlion and Ronnie Appawoo, CR-75-72, was observing in the court-
room. He addressed the Court and pressed to have his similar pretrial motion
heard before the jury was picked:

is litigated for the next ten years and goes up to the Supreme Court of the United
States and in the meantime the government amends, you have done your client
a very great disservice, because there is no bar to him being prosecuted.

Derense CounseL. Well, that is a possibility, Your Honor.

The Court. It is not only a possibility. That is what will happen. Now, I have
been trying to handle all these cases on this calendar by having a jury in the
bog there and not listening to your arguments about anything. You push in
here now at a time when the motion isn’t even set down for argument, and you
have got your client in a fix where he may be twice tried for this thing. Now,
that is poor legal representation from my point of view, and I am going to do
what I can to him against his counsel, and we will just keep that right
where it is and get a jury for you one of these days, and when we get the matter
up before the jury we will get far enough down the way with the evidence to
see what is involved and then we will entertain your motion. I don’t want to be
trying these cases again. I am interested in the court docket as much as I am the
Indian boy, but he ought to have the benefit of double jeopardy defense. If he
is prosecuted once that ought to be enough. That will be all.

Regarding this particular problem, the Department of Justice has filed with
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals a petition for writ of mandamus requiring
the Chief Judge to hear pretriil motions in accordance with Rule 12 (e) of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 12(e) specifically provides: A motion
made before trial shall be determined before trial unless the court, for good
cause, orders that it be deferred for determination at the trial of the general
issue or until after verdict, but no such determination shall be deferred if a
party's right to appeal is adversely affected. . . The Tenth Circuit has ordered
Judge Ritter to respond to the government's petition for mandamus. To my
knowledge, the Chief Judge has not filed a response.

In the case I just cited to you the issue involved the constitutionality of an
act of Congress. Certainly the Court of Appeals should have the opportunity to
decide that. However, it was Judge Ritter's intention to deprive the government
of that opportunity.

Frequently the rights of those defendants who are in custody have been abused
by the delays caused by the court. One of the more serious problems faced by the

nited States Attorney's Office during the term of William Lockhart was the
inability to bring in-custody defendants to trial before Chief Judge Ritter within

58
2

i

1

eo

5 if
A
887755
4 a
bir
Heed
. 22 5
Hi
ez
155

U. FAILURE TO FULLY UTILIZE THE U.S. MAGISTRATE
In the District of Utah, the United States Magistrate has been utilized very

and the District of Utah such a delegation of authority is in existence.

In the District of Utah several federal agencies have made requests to the
Court that the U.S. Magistrate be utilized for the enforcement of minor
offenses, but their requests have not been granted. Since 1970 each U.S.
Attorney has made similar requests of the court. During the tenure of C. Nelson
Day, such a request was made on numerous occasions. During the tenure of
the Chief Judge’s own interim appointee, William J. Lockhart, similar requests
were made. Mr. Lockhart tried unsuccessfully to persuade the court as to the
need for trial authority in the magistrate and a bail forfeiture system.

Recently I have also made a request that the U.S. Magistrate be more fully
utilized for the effective enforcement of minor offenses. Based upon past history
I have little hope that this petition will be

Absent the use of the U.S. Magistrate the only available forum for the
enforcement of minor federal offenses is that of the U.S. District Court. How-
svat, Ses a large part of the distsict, that Serum te not realistically available
for enforcement use of Judge Ritter’s attitude toward minor offenses.
Although he refuses to delegate trial authority,
hearing minor offenses and abuses the government prosecutor when such cases

:
f
f
f

where regulations for the protection of our natural resources and the people
rests must be enforced.

A recent review of the need for better enforcement of minor offenses in the
District of Utah disclosed the following: (1) there is presently no way of

the State of Utah; (4) within the National Forests it is estimated that over
250 cases in 1975 would have been handled through a federal magistrate if

Without the effective use of the U.S. District Court as a forum for the en-
and without the appropriate delegation of authority
made to the U.S. Magistrate, violations of federal laws and regulations

il
raft
i
f
:

T MANNER WHICH JUDGE RITTER HAS ADMINISTERED GRAND JURIES IN THE
DISTRICT OF UTAH OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS HAS GREATLY HAMPERED THE
ENFORCEMENT OF CRIMINAL LAWS IN THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

At the present time there is in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals a petition
for writ of mandamus to require Chief Judge Ritter to convene a grand jury for

terms, prohibit Judge Ri from unlawfully interfering with or
— ‘the grand jury once convened. The specific relief requested is as
follows: (1) forthwith convene a grand jury; (2) follow the procedures
epectied in Rute 6 of the Fetal 3
woe ; United States Attormey and

intervals: (5) allow said grand jury to investigate any matter it deems proper ;
(6) allow the office of the United States Attorney for the District of Utah to
present to the grand ury such matters it deems necessary in the public interest ;
and (7) sign and ‘orce all immunity orders obtained in accordance

tion over the Petition

filing of the mandamus and which are pertinent inquiry are as follows.
During the last five years a grand jury in the Central Division of the

of Utah met to investigate crime on only 57 days. During July

jury sat five days. During 1972 a grand jury was convened for

that was because a defendant had been charged with a capital offense.

jury was not convened at all during 1973. During 1974 a grand jury

E
E
3
i
.
=
f
:
Hat
HE

1 the
petition for write of mandamus.
This situation existed even though four defendants refused to waive
lack of a

EEE e

not be indicted or prosecuted.

On January 23, 1976, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, I filed a motion requesting that a grand jury be empanelled (Exhibit
22). As grounds for this motion I emphasized: (1) the public interest requires
that certain matters be inquired into and that alleged criminal offenses be in-
vestigated to determine if indictments should issue; (2) that four defendants
had refused to waive indictment and required presentment; and (8) that it
probable that the antitrust laws are being violated in the District
that such probability required an investigation. As of the date the
mandamus action was filed, Chief Judge Ritter had ignored the fact
defendants had requested presentment and that the United States Attorney

5
E

4
ic
it
5
*

Bod
HE
11
f
833
717117217

ul
i
ge E
1
:
0
i
ili

FEF
i
1215
f
1175
177
fi
5
11
n fi
1
1

4

51
err N
the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department in chambers on

of law
respect to issuance of immunity orders as well as an applica-
tion by the United States Attorney for orders to compel testimony of 14 wit-
— the necessary authorizations of the Assistant Attorney General
attac
On September 3, 1975, the United States was advised orally by the clerk that
Judge Ritter would not sign any orders compelling testimony. Another motion
to reconsider his decision was submitted to Judge Ritter on October 6, 1975, but
again he refused to
The testimony of the 14 witnesses was essential to the grand jury's continued
investigation into price fixing in the District of Utah. The grand jury had already
heard over ten days of testimony from over 20 witnesses. Government attorneys
the grand jury had expended approximately 2,000 hours working on this

The United States filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals on November 25, 1975, seeking an order to require
Judge Ritter to sign the immunity orders.

On December 4, 1975, I filed a motion requesting the grand jury be allowed to
continue to sit to conclude its business (Exhibit 24). That motion also asked the
court to lift the restrictions imposed in the April 25, 1975, order. Notwithstand-
ing the plea made by the government and over the protest of the grand jury
foreman Judge Ritter discharged the grand jury while it was still investigating
fraud and antitrust matters.

In his report to the court, the grand jury foreman told Judge Ritter. the
Grand Jury is currently considering other matters . . but is not ready to report
on them at the present time .. . At the conclusion of the court's remarks dis-
charging the grand jury, the foreman asked if he could be heard, and stated:

“The Grand Jury would like to thank you for the opportunity that we have had

serving as federal grand jurors in representing the people of the United States
of America; but we are deeply concerned, and we have been for some time about
the fact of unfinished business.

“We haven't felt it a hardship, you know, to meet and to act in this capacity;
and we would like to at this time, with your permission, to complete the investi-
gations that still haven't completed.” (emphasis added) (Exhibit 25)

Thereafter the court instructed the foreman, “We will do as I say.“ Thus, the
one grand jury that was convened in 1975, while it still had eight months to
tions because: (1) the court refused to sign some fifteen immunity orders; (2)
the court limited the matters the grand jury could investigate; and (3) the court
prematurely discharged the grand jury.

Before convening a grand jury in 1974 the Judge required the United States
Attorney to submit to the court a list of those individuals who were to be investi-
gated (Exhibit 26). Such conduct, together with the limitation order of April 25,
1975, constitutes an interference with the functions of the Executive Branch.

The manner in which Judge Ritter has administered the grand jury system has
frustrated the enforcement of federal criminal law in the District of Utah.

IV. THE CHIEF JUDGE USES HIS POWERS IN A MANNER ADVERSE TO THE LEGITIMATE
INTERESTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERN MENT

A review of all criminal cases coming before Judge Ritter between the dates
of November 7, 1975, and January 30, 1976, reveals the following: (1) a total
of 22 cases were listed for trial (does not include cases where pleas of guilty
were entered) ; (2) out of those 22 cases the government prevailed in only two
cases (the same staff experiences approximately 90 per cent success
in the Northern Division of the Utah District, which is more in keeping with
national averages) ; (3) in two of the remaining cases the government was able
to obtain a stay of the proceedings in the Court of Appeals so that mandamus

ee ens CO) Se ee ae eee Giammeees
; (5) m 2 cases verdicts of not guilty were returned
by juries after being erroneously or prejudicially instructed on the law by the

Aver 1, 1975.

I enclose for your information summary of 36 criminal cases awaiting trial as
of this date before the Utah District Court—Central Division.

On June 6, 1975 I supplied the Court with a similar inventory of criminal
matters awaiting trial. At that time there were 43 items on the calendar. The
Court arranged to have Judge Sherrill Halbert come to the District and as a
result of his efforts 16 matters on that calendar have been disposed of.

In addition to the 36 criminal cases now awaiting trial, there are also 11
criminal cases awaiting arraignment. A summary of those cases is also attached
hereto for the Court's information.

CR-74-99 (Buchanan) was cancelled by Judge Halbert. Forty-five witnesses
were served subpoenas and are on a standby basis. A jury was also selected.
The case could be disposed of in a two-day trial.

CR-74-52 (Rio DeOro) was also cancelled by Judge Halbert. More than sixty
witnesses were subpoenaed and are on a standby basis. This case will probably
require approximately two weeks to try.

Your advice and assistance would be appreciated.

Respectfully,
Ramon M. CHILp,
D. S. Attorney.

SEPTrMBER 17, 1975.
Hon. WIILISs W. Ritter,
Chie? Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Utah.
Ramon M. CHILD,
U.S. Attorney.

PENDING TRIAL CALENDAR: At the Court's request I have contacted the Acting
Director of the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division, Department of Justice,
regarding pending criminal cases CR-74-52 and CR-74-53. I am informed that
the prosecutors assigned to these cases by the Department of Justice will be
prepared to proceed with trial, if the Court desires, on October 6, 1975 with
CR-74-52 to be tried commencing on that date and CR-74-53 to follow in turn.
There is a possibility that pleas may enter in CR-74—53 but the possibility of
pleas in CR-74-52 is considered remote. a

If the Court directs trials to commence September 29, the prosecution will
make every attempt to be prepared. Such date would be the earliest possible
date in which prosecution could be prepared and it is felt the preparation would
be less than adequate for an efficient presentation of the Government's case. If
the Court must set trial date to commence prior to October 6, we would ap-
preciate a commencing date to be as close to October 6, as possible.

Thank you for your consideration in these matters.

OFFICE MEMORANDUM—VU.8. GOVERNMENT

To: Ramon M. Child, U.S. Attorney =
From: Willis W. Ritter, Chief Judge
Subject: Pending Trial Calendar.
Receipt is acknowledged of your memo of September 17, 1975 cases
CR-74-52 and CR-74-53. Case No. CR-74-52 (United States v. Rio. Oro

Mining Co., et al.) is set for September 29, 1975 at 10:00 a.m. in my Court-
room. Case No. CR-74-53 (United States v. Richard T. Cardall, et al.) is set
to follow upon conclusion of CR-74-52.

The Court expects all counsel to be present with witnesses and prepared to

to trial.
= WIIIISs W. RITTer,

Chief Judge.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
JURY TRIALS BEFORE HONOWABLE WILLIS RITTER i
COMMENCING THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1975
10:00 A. M.

COUNSEL ARE INSTRUCTED TO KEFP IN TOUCH WITH THE CLERK AND WITI! THE ATTORNEYS

IN THE CASES THAT PRECEDE THEM. YOUR CASE WILL SE TRIED AS SOON AS THERE IS
A DISPOSITION OF THE CASES AHEAD OF YOU. FREQUCNTLY THE CASES ARE SDITLID
RATHER THAN TRIED, AND THE RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP INFORMED AND PREPARED TO GO

TO TRIAL RESTS UPCN COUNSEL.

Cr 74-98 United States of America Max D. Wheeler
vs
David W. Clayton J. Thomas Bowen, appt.

(Willful failure to file tax returns)

HEARING: Defendant's motion to dismiss information
Defendant's motion to suppress evidence

er 75-73 United States of America Max D. Wheeler
Ho. 2 vs
John Emery Angel Earl Dillman, ret.
(Assault)
Cr 79-75 United States of America Max D. Wheeler
Bo. 3 vs
George Boyd Corbett Orrin Hatch;

Walter Plumb, III - ret

(Willful failure to file tax returns)

HEARING: Defcndant’s motion to quash
de fend ant s motion to disqualify judge

cr 75-79 United States of America Rodney G. Snow
No. 4 vs
Thomas Warner Hoopes

(Willful failure to file income
tax returns) EXHIBIT 4

Cr 75-80 United States of America

No. 5 ve

Ray M. Ruesch and Roger F. Backus

(Illegal Hunting)

Rodney C. Snow

Sumner J. Hatch - Ruesch;
Daniel Boone - Backus

tah
Cr 75-90 United States of America
No. 6 bas
Bobby D. Bates

(Possession of Pornographic Materials wi:
Antent to distribute)

Mex D. Wheeler

Phil L. Hansen - ret.

er 75-112 United States of America

No. 12 2
Shetimn Clen Kay

(Possession of unregistered firearm)

Michael Hunter

Don Blackham; Dean R.

Mitchell - ret.

Cr 75-101 United States of America

No. 7 vs

Little Dutch Boy Bakeries, Inc. William v.
Morris, Alfred J. Taggard and Frank Sakker

(Adulteration of food held for sale after
shipment in interstate commerce: intro-

Steven Snarr

Norman 8. Johnson - Dutch
Orrin Hatch - Morris;
Bruce Findlay - aukker

Gerald R. Miller - Tag-

gard

duction of adulterated food into interstate

Commerce)

Cr 75-102 United States of America

No. 8 vs

Cloyd H. Hepworth, dba, Certified Manufacturing
and Supply, Inc.

(Willful failure to file tax returns)

Max D. Wheeler

Richard Leedy - ret.

Cr 75-109 United States of America Michael Hunter
No. 9 =
LaVar William Ferguson Gary K. Weight; Toric.
ROOM - ret.

(False statement to federally insured e

institut lon)
er 75-110 United States of America Max Wheeler
No. 10 ve

Allen D. LeMon and Cary LeMon

(Counterfeiting)
. HEARING: Redetermination of bail.

Bruce Cc. Lubeck = ret.

@ 75-111 United States of America

No. 11 ve
david Baker

(Interstate transpertation of falsely mde,

Steven W. Snarr

John R. Anderson - appt.

Cr 75-115 United States of America Max Wheeler
vs
al Bruce E. Maw James Barber - ret.
(Wire Fraud)
Cr 75-116 United States of America Michael Hunter
vs
No. 14

Frank Steve Brzoticky

(Unlawful tran«portation of firearm)

John H. Allen appc.

Cr 75-117 United States of America

No. 15 =
Wesley V. Calloway and Curtis Ray Green

Michael Hunter

Robert J. Schumacher;
Dale J. Craft - appt.

(Dyer Act)
’
Cr 75-118 United States of America Rodney Snow

No. 16 vs
John Helia Porter

(utter ing and Passing Counterfeit
Obligation of United States)

Richard C. Allen appt.

Cr 75-120 United States of America
ve *
Hoskie Lansing and Herman Farley

No. 17

(Rape on Indian Reservation)
HEARING: Def. Lansing's motion to dismiss

Max Wheeler

Larry J. Echohawk - Lansin:
d. Gilbert Athay - Farley
each appt.

te 75-121 United States of America

No. 18 =
Lynn D. Noren and Main Motors, Inc.

(False statements in Loan Application)

Michael Hunter

M. Byron Fisher - rec.

No. 19 ”
Craig William McLachlan

* (False Statement in Loan Application)

Gilbert Athay - rec.

Cr 75-123 Un! States of America
Bo. 20 s
Kevin W. Barney and James Scott Liddiard

(Arson in National Forest)

Max D. Wheeler

Phil L. Hansen - ret.

CONSOLIDATED
cr. 75-125 United States of America Steven Snarr
vs
Lynn d. Lossee Phil LI. Hansen - ret
(Arson)
Cr 75-127 United States of America Max Wheeler
No. 21 we

Peter T. Lorenz

(Giving false information in acquisi-
tion of firearm; interstate transpor-
tation of firearm by felon)

HEARING: Def's motion to suppress evidence

Summer J. Hatch . rer.

Cr 75-129 United States of America Rodney Snow
No. 22 ve
James Killian Richard T. Ashton - appt.
(Dyer Act)
Cr 75-76 United States of America Ramon M. Child;
=" 9 Anthony E. Desmond

Countryside Farms, Inc.: Egg Products
Company; Olson Farms, Inc., Snow White
Egg Company; R. Kent christof ferson:
Gilbert T. Cochran

(Conspiracy in restraint of
Interstate Trade and Commerce)

HEARING:

(1) Def. Egg Product's motion for bill of particulars
(2) Def. Egg Product's motion for inspection & copying of

(3) Def. Egg Product's motion for discovery and inspection

Clitford L. Ashton «
Ricardo Ferrari = Cou:
tryside Farms «& Chris
fferson:

Herschel Saperstein -
Egg Product=;: :
Harold G. Christensen
Olson Farms „ Cochran
Robert . Grandt - sn
White

grand jury testimony

(4) Def.Olson rarms & Cochran's amended motion for discovery and inspection

In THE Unitep States Distaict Court FOR THE District or UTAH

CENTRAL DIVISION

MoTION FoR 21 Days ADVANCE NOTICE ron TRIAL CALENDAR

Comes now Roman M. Child, United States Attorne J
. Child, y for the District of
aed and on behalf of the United States of America, and — —
t 2 Honorable Court give the Government a minimum of 21 days to pre-
pose or the Court's present trial calendar, and for cause shows the Court as

57

1. The United States received the Court's present trial calendar, which is
scheduled to commence on December 18, 1975, during the late afternoon of
Friday, December 12, 1975.

2. There are a substantial number of witnesses that must be subpoenaed in
the first, third and fourth cases on the calendar, which are tax fraud cases,
and subpoenas cannot be prepared by the United States Attorney's office and
served by the United States Marshal's office on three working days notice.

3. A substantial ber of the cases on the Court's calendar will require the
presence of witn who reside outside the State of Utah. Most of those wit-
nesses will be unable to be present because of the inability to arrange travel
through the airlines. Due to the airline strike which has crippled United Air-
lines and due to the usual Christmas pressure placed upon the airlines, flights
in and out of Salt Lake City are already overbooked, and the Government would
be unable to secure its witnesses by reason of the airline problem.

4. The United States Marshal Service has advised the United States Attor-
ney’s office that they would need at least ten days advance notice for service
of any subpoena. The United States Attorney is desirous of honoring the re-
quest of the United States Marshal Service in assisting them in performing
their difficult task by giving them a reasonable time within which to serve
subpoenas.

5. Based on the foregoing, the United States Attorney respectfully informs
the Court that the Government cannot be ready to try any of the following
cases on the Court’s calendar earlier than January 5, 1976:

CR-74-98—U.S. v. David W. Clayton.

CR-75-75—U.S. v. George B. Corbett.

CR-75-79—U.S. v. Thomas W. Hoopes.

CR-75-101—U.S. v. Little Dutch Boy Bakeries, et al.

CR-75-102—U.S. v. Cloyd H. Hepworth.

CR-75-109—U.S. v. LaVar Wm. Ferguson.

CR-75-110—U.S. v. Allan and Gary LeMon.

CR-75-111—U.S. v. David Baker, dismissed.

CR-75-115—U.S. v. Bruce E. Maw.

CR-75-116—U.S. v. Frank S. Brzoticky, dismissed.
CR-75-117—U.S. v. Wesley V. Calloway and Curtis Ray Green.
CR-75-120—U.8. v. Hoskie Lansing and Herman Farley.
CR-75-121—-U.S. v. Lynn D. Noren & Main Motors.
CR-75-129—-U.S. v. James Killian, guilty.

CR-75-76—U.S. v. Countryside Farms, et al.

As to the remaining cases on the Court's calendar, we are not yet informed
as to the success the United States Marshal may have in serving subpoenas
and securing the attendance of both defendants and witnesses in light of trans-
portatioa problems and the holiday season. We are informed that some in-state
witnesses have left the State for the holidays.

6. For the foregoing reasons the Government respectfully requests that the
Court's criminal trial calendar not commence earlier than January 5, 1976.

Respectfully submitted this 15th day of December 1975.

RAMo M. CHILD,

U.S. Attorney.
In THE Unrrep S Ars District Court ron THE District or UTAH CENTRAL
DIvIsion
(Cr 75-111)

Unitep States or Amenica, Plaintiff,
v.

Davip Baker, Defendant.

Sr Lake Crrr. Uran,
December 18, 1975.

Before The Honorable Willis W. Ritter, Chief Judge.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Appearances: For the United States: Steven Snarr, Assistant U.S. Attor-
ney, 200 P.O. & Courthouse Building, Salt Lake City, Utab.

For the Defendant: John R. Anderson, Attorney at Law, Boston Building,
Salt Lake City, Utah. 10

about it. ,
Mr. ANperson. Your Honor, we think that the government has charged—well,
on in the trial. What it is, your Honor, it is a

4 our Honor. I will have an order over here.
Court. Five months and they are still not ready.
* *

transcript of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
Dated at Salt Lake City, Utah, this 14th day of February, 1976.
Barpara G. Anpersen, RPR.
Court Reporter.

In THE Untrep States Distaicr Court ror THE District or Uran CENTRAL
Division

(Cr 75-116)
Untrep States or America, Plaintiff,
v.

Frank Steve Bezoricxy, Defendant.
Satt Lake City, Uran,

December 18, 1975.
Before: The Honorable Willis W. Ritter, Chief Judge.

ces: For the United States: Michael Hunter, Assistant U.S. Attorney,
200 P.O. & Courthouse Building, Salt Lake City, Utah.
For the Defendant: John H. Allen, Attorney at Law, Kennecott Building,
Salt Lake City, Utah.
DecemsBer 18, 1975.

The Court. Next is Brzoticky. This is a unlawful transportation of firearms?

Mr. Hunter. Yes, your Honor. This came from California. And the United
States, at this time, is not ready. There are two witnesses in California and
two witnesses in Colorado and two witnesses in Washington, D.C.

Mr. ALLEN. I am ready, your Honor.

— eT NI — “te

The Court. t is involved here? There is nothing involved in here to fool
Mr

around with this matter.
. Atten. I don't think so, your Honor. It is a claimed transportation of a

2 pistol across the state lines.

Mr. Hunter. Your Honor, Mr. Brzoticky was residing with his girl friend and
her brother-in-law in California, took the brother-in-law's gun, came to Utah
and pawned the gun.

He pled nolo in the case in Colorado some time ago. And therefore he had
a record. And that was the reason for pursuing the action.

Mr. ALLEN. The prior case

The Court. You are not ready?

Mr. Hunter. No, your Honor.

The Court. The case is dismissed.

* * * * * * —
CERTIFICATE

I, Barbara G. Andersen, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public
for the State of Utah, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct
transcript of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

Dated at Salt Lake City, Utah, this 14th day of February, 1976.

BAA G. ANDERSEN, RPR.

Ix THe Unrrep States Districr Court ror THE District or UTAH CENTRAL
DIVISION

(Cr 75-122)
UniTep StaTes oF AmMenica, Plaintiff, *
v.
Craig WILLIAM McLacHuran, Defendant.

Salt Lake City, Utah, December 18, 1975.
Before: The Honorable Willis W. Ritter, Chief Judge.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Appearances: For the United States: Michael Hunter, Assistant U.S. Attorney,
200 P.O. & Courthouse Building, Salt Lake City, Utah.
For the Defendant: Gilbert Athay, Attorney at Law, 321 South 6th East, Salt

Lake City, Utah.
DECEMBER 1975.

The Court. McLachlan. „ 8

Mr. ATHAY. He is present, ready to proceed.

Mr. Hunter. Your Honor, there are three witnesses in this. Christine, his
ex-wife, is a key witness. She lives in Midway, Utah. We have been unable
to serve a subpoena on her at this point. We have been unable to establish her
whereabouts.

The Court. This case is dismissed.

* * * * * * *
CERTIFICATE

‘I, Barbara G. Andersen, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public
for the State of Utah, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct
transcript of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

Dated at Salt Lake City, Utah, this 14th day of February, 1976.
Barsara G. ANDERSON, RPR.
Court Reporter.

60
In THe Unitep States District Court ron THE District
— o Uran CENTRAL

(Cr 75-123)
(Cr 75-125)
Untrep States or AMERica, Plaintiff,

v.
Kevin W. Banxxr axDο James Scorr Llano, Defendants,
AND

Untrep States or America, Plaintiff,
v.

Lrnw D. Lossee, Defendant.

Salt Lake City, Utah, December 18, 1975.
Before: The Honorable Willis w. Ritter, Chief Judge.

Appearances: For the United States: Steven stan
2000, & Courthouse Buldng, Salt Lake Hg, Utah.

r 2 L.
salt Lake 8 Hansen, Attorney at Law, 250 East Third South,
; e Court. Barney and Liddiard. This is

Mr. Hansen. Yes, Barney and Liddiard. — nr
tian? Court. Arson in a national forest. All right. What is the status of this
a a, Se = ready to go.

r. SNARR. Your Honor, I believe it has been consolidated with the matter of
os 1 as — 2 the calendar. The government is still attempting to
1 resence tness from Reno and would anticipate being able to

1 — 2 what?

r. SNARR. We are still attempting to secure the attendance of a wi
1 — a witness from
— pape bey would anticipate he would be present at the time this matter
pe... 4. is reached right now. Your anticipation at some time in the

ag 1— — consolidated?

r. SEN. Your Honor, they had separate preliminary hearings,

Mr. Lossess wasn’t apprehend after — caring of —
* 4 All ph. were —— 9 9
e would move to dismiss because we are ready an governm ,
The Court. Are you ready in elther of those cases? 2
q your Honor, we are ready with the exception tha
have not secured the attendance of Fe ‘ial
The ¢ "Tes Justa —1 = witness from Reno who we feel is essential
r. SNARR. We anticipate that he will be able to drive here and vaila
for trial as early as Monday. We would select a jury * *
— 11 — 8 *

Mr. Hansen. Thank you, your Honor.

I, Barbara G. Anderson, Registered Professional Reporter
for the State of Utah, do hereby certify that 348
transcript of proceedings in the above- entitled matter.

Dated at Salt Lake City, Utah, this 14th day of February, 1976.

Barsara G. ANperson, RPR.
Court Reporter.

61

IN THE Untrep States Distaitct Cover ror THe District or Uran

Cxxraal Division

(Cr 75-123)
(Cr 75-125)

Unrrep States or Amenica, Plaintiff
V.
Kevin W. BAAxxr aNp James Scott Lippiarp, Defendants,
AND
Unrrep States or Amenica, Plaintiff,

v.
Lynn D. Losser, Defendant.
Sar Lax Crry, Utan, December 18, 1975.
Before: The Honorable Willis W. Ritter, Chief Judge.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Appearances: For the United States: Steven Snarr, Assistant U.S. Attorney,
200 P.O. & Courthouse Building, Salt Lake City, Utah.
For the Defendants: Phil L. Hansen, Attorney at Law, 250 East Third South,

Salt Lake City, Utah.
DeceMBer 18, 1975.

The Court. Barney and Liddiard. This is Barney and Liddiard.

Mr. Hansen. Yes, Barney and Liddiard.

The Court. Arson in a national forest. All right. What is the status of this
thing?

Mr. HANnsEN. We are ready to go.

Mr. Syarr. Your Honor, I believe it has been consolidated with the matter

of Lynn Lossee as indicated on the calendar. The government is still attempting
to secure the presence of a witness from Reno and would anticipate being able
to do so and proceed.

The Court. You what?

Mr. Snake. We are still attempting to secure the attendance of a witness from
Reno, Nevada. We would anticipate he would be present at the time this matter
would be reached.

The Court. It is reached right now. Your anticipation at some time in the
future is wrong.

Why are these consolidated?

Mr. Hansew. Your Honor, they had separate preliminary hearings, your Honor.
Mr. Lossee wasn’t apprehended until after the preliminary hearing of Barney
and Liddiard. All three were together.

We would move te dismiss because we are ready and the goverment isn't.

The Court. Are you ready in either of those cases?

Mr. Snare. As I stated, your Honor, we are ready with the exception that
we have not secured the attendance of a witness from Reno who we feel is
essential.

The Court. It is just across the border.

Mr. Snare. We anticipate that he will be able to drive here and be available

for trial as early as Monday. We would like to seelct a jury and
The Court. Both cases are
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, your Honor.

* * * * * * *
CERTIFICATE

I, Barbara G. Andersen, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public
for the State of Utah, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct
transcript of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

Dated at Salt Lake City, Utah, this 14th day of February, 1976.

Barsara G. ANDERSEN, RPR.
Court Reporter.

78-678 O- 76-5

* eee
IH THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT 12 1075
CENTRAL DIVISTON 1
r TRIALS BEFORE W nn WILLIS RITTER ne -
COMMENCING WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1976
10:00 A.M.

.

COUNSEL ARE INSTRUCTED TO KEEP IN TOUCH WITH THE CLERK AND WITH THE ...TORNEYS IN THE CA
THAT PRECEDE T:ICM. YOUR CASE WILL BE TRIED AS SOON AS THERE IS A DISPOSITION OF rug cA
AMEAD OF YOU. FREQUENTLY THE CASTS ARE SETTLED RATHER T
TO KEEP LYFORMTD AND PREPARED TO GO TO TRIAL RESTS UPON COUNSEL

WAN TRIED, AND THE RESPONSIBILITY

Cr 75-79 United States of America ‘

Bo. 1 vs
Thomas Warner Hoopes

Rodney G. Snow

(Willful failure to file income tax returns)

Junta BET URE MUPVRAOLE Hib dd Bisse

3 1-330

5. *

Ray Wardle

Indian Tribe, a Federal Chartered
11 — Wvasket; Homey J. Secakuku;
Freé A. Conetah; Wilbur Cuch; Irene C. Cuch
end Gary Poowegup, individurlly «nd 4s sem-
bers of Uiatah 2nd Oursy Tribe Business
Coamittec; and Michael A. Quinn, indivi-
dually and as chiirmun of Ute Tribal
Personnel Committee

(Civil Rights)

James 8. Black;
Kenneth . Kripke

Scott C. Pugsiey

David J. Knowlton ret

Cr 74-98 United States of America
Bo. 2 vs

Max D. Wheeler

david V. Clayton

(Willful failure to file tax returns)

BEARING: Defendant's motion to dismiss information
Defendant's motion to suppress evidence

c 74-342
10. 7

Pamela Marshall
vs
Frank Hildebrand
(Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle)

S. Rex Levis

John R. Snow

Cc 6-72 Walter E. Williaas W. Brent Wilcox:
4. Wally Sandack
10. 3 vs
Otis Elevator Company, corp. Ray R. Christensen
. ve

Christiansen Brothers, Ine. and U. v.

Reed L. Martineau
Clyde and Company, joint ventures

(Damages - Personal Injury)
JURY TRIAL - Determination of Damages

c 74-382

Jerald C. Atwood

Union Pacific Railraod Company

(Violation of Federal zoloyers
Liebility Acc)

Orrin C. Hatch

3. M. Matheson;
Robert N. Weatherbee

c 74-389

Brenda McGuire Shuman

Iva Oliver (Koslowski) Hawkins and
Betbert Koslowski

(Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle)

C. Jeffrey Thompson

H. Wayne Wadsworth

c 74-105 Elizabeth Pace and Joyanna White
Bo. 4 ves
Hiroshi Tonoike

John L. McCoy

_ David k. Winder
(Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle)

C 74-394.

Wo. 10

Ricardo A. Castro

Cerro De Pasco Corporation, subsidiary
of Cerro Corporation

(Breach of Contract)

Don E. Hart!

Jawes d Lee;
Daniel NM. Allred

C 74-140 Carmen Kathleen McKell
Bo. 5 ve
Melba Lynne Jarman

Thomas R. Blonquist

. Robert Bayle
(Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle)

EXHIBIT g

c 74-397
Wo. 11

Gary d. Peterson and Thoms D. Peterson

ve
United States of America

ve
Provo River Water Users Association, corp.

(Wrongful beach)

John L. Slack

eon Child

J. Dennis Frederick

‘BEST COPY AVAILABLE

JURY TRIAL CALENDAR c ORAL tts RITTER

C. 75-4 Robert Rees Ban.
Bo. 12 ve

Pioneer Cen- t- tor cotoret to-
Illinois corper:tion

(Personal Injury - Lawn Mower Accident)

Pege 3

John E. Shamber,;
Bon EK. Hommill

LeRoy S$. Axland

JURY TIUALS BETORE HONORABLE WILLIS u. RITTER

COMENCING THURSDAY, NOVIMBER 20, 1975

Cr 74-354 United States of America
Bo. 13 ve

J. Milton Rich
(Bankruptcy Fraud) 0
JURY ALREADY IMPANELED

Remon M. Child

Donn E. Cassity

MONDAY, FESaraAry 2, 1976
Cr 75-76 United States of America

Bo. 14 vs

Countryside Farms, Inc.; Ege Products
Company; Olson Farms, Inc.; Snow White
Egg Company; R. Kent Christofferson;
Gilbert T. Cochran

(Conspiracy in Restraint of
Interstate Trade and Commerce)

eee tr Wasa ta Wars
FOR THE

J. Milton Rich No. CR 74-54

J

TAKE NOTICE that the above-entitied case has been set for

Ramon Child;
Gary Spratling

Clifford T. A-hton & Ricardo
Ferrari - Countryside Farms
and Chr istofierson;
Herschel Saperscein & Clark
Sessions - Ev: Products;
Barold C. Christensen - 0180
Parms & Cochran:

Robert . Brandt - Snow Whit

We

Salt Lake City „% THURSDAY, Wen 20 9 75 , at

|
9:00 A.M. befere

Honorable Willis . Ritter, PF. o. 4 Courthouse SI. . 350 South Main.

—

p aul. U. s. rr. 200 P.. Courthouse ide, Salt Lake City, Utah

E. Cassity, ., arts Bids., Salt Lak t
. „ fa . e City. U
J. Milton Nen, 6261 Sauié Creek Court, Florissant, —

=
Ske *~

10:00 A.M.
COUNSEL ARE netten TO KIT? IN TOUCH WITH ‘TE CLERK ADD WITH TUE ATTONYS IN TH CATS
TWAT PRECEDE FNM. wum CSE WIIL PE TRITD AS SOON 4S THERE TS A DICPOSTTION or NN CoS
NEAD OF YOU. FMA irt TD CASES ARE SETTLLD PATTER TH TRIDD, AND THE RESPONSIBILITY TO
KEEP INTORED. NW PREPARED TO CO TO TRIAL HOTS UTON COUNSEL.
c 274-70 Donald bod Julunder ard Jeff Julander, Ken Charberlain
John Julander, lorraine Arn Julanier Clifford L. Ashton
and Bruce Julanier, minors, by their Scott Savage
quardian Mary ausn Julanicr
No. 1 vs
Ford Motor Company, A corp. Ray R. Christensen
(Motor vehicle accident - death)
C 194-73 William Taylor Newland, IV James A. McIntyre
vs
Robert Morton, Acent for hurgau of Ramon M. Child
Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and Robert M. Ad‘ins
No. 2 Ronald R. Robinson, Sheriff of Surmit Co. Utah
(Damages - Violation Sth and 6th Arendments)
C 210-73 Flying Diatond Corp., a corp. Hardin A. Whitney
vs
No. 3 Dan Poland, John Sutherland, Craig Johnston Richard Lec?’

Robert L. Lat, Orlard Nielson, Thovas

„ Murray Payburn, William Sayer,
American Stock Trans-er Co., 4 corp.
Jay Miller, Evelyn Mitchener, Transarericen
Securities, Inc., a corp., Duane Jenson,
John Badger aka J. J. Bagger, Phillip kK.
Gmith aka P. k. Srith aka Phyllis k. Smith,
J. M. Smith aka Jack Smith, P Skcen, O. Todd,
James Larcer, John Does 1 through 10 and
Don Anderson

(Securities Exchange Act of 1934)

Robert V. Philligfs
Glenn C. Hani
Richard C. diele
Joseph McCarthy

C 74-66

United States of Arerica
vs

80 Acres of Land, rere or less, situated

n San Juan County, Utah, Povert Byron

ad aka fobert DB. N and Lynda Heidi Redd,
his wife, et al., and unn omers

(Land Cordemnation)

Ramon M. Child

Vernon 8. Fes cy

San Juan Councy Attorney
Paul E. Reiru ms

Robert S. Carpoell, Jr.

Cc 74-109

No. 5

Vern R. Webster, Robert B. Sheldon, Orson P.
Kesler and Gordon McClean, uslividually and
as representative msbers of 3 class

vs
The Travelers Insurance co.. Equitable Life
Insurance Socicty of the Unita States,
Prudential Insurance Co. of America, tu
ldfe ani Casualty

(Clayton Act and the Sherman Act)

Curtis k. Qeerhonsley
Dennis F. Olun ‘
Dan L. Bermm

Ricardlo d.
Harold G. Gr ten

No. 6 Larry C. MClellan Robert Van Sciver
(Violation of Fifth Amenirent Civil Rights)

c 74-140 Carmen Kathlown McKell Thomas R. Blonmpist

vs

No. 7 Molba Lyme Jarmmw F. Robert Bayle
(Auto Collisica - Injury)

C 74-149 Jerrold R. Morgan William G. Gibbs

vs

No. 8 Verland T. Whipple Ralph R. Mabey
(Breach of Contract)

C 74-153 Darwin L. Stone Glen M. Rich=an

vs
Ring-Scclcy Mera co., Inc., Stephen B. Nete 246-73 Dale Workman ‘ Ray G. Martineau, Esa
- Richard u. Ciauque, Es
vs
Ontario Drive & Gear. Ltd.; Salsbury Ray R. Christensen,Es:
Corporation; Instrument Systems Rex J. Hanson, Esc.
H. Wayne ‘"s-svworth,fe
Mm. 9 (Breach of Warranty causing Raymond Berry, Esq.
personal injury to plaintiff)
— 7
C 343-73 Walter Martinez, a minor by Willie David K. Robinson, Es
Martinez; Jce Martinez, a minor, by Raymond S. Uno, Esa.
Walter Martinez; Kathy Jenes, a Ainor,
Donald L. Jones; Kenny Jones, a
„ by Denald L. Jones; Dennis
1d, a minor, by Michael Rinaldi
vs
Boyd FT. Gurney, Clarke N. Johnsen, Allan L. Larson, Esc.
No. 10 Don Rowberry, Reed Russell, Billy
Bunnell, Don Kirk, Owen Cluff, and
John and Jane Does 1 to 65, and
Board of Education of Tooele School District
(Violation of First & Fourteenth Amendrents -
Civil Rights)
cr 74-48 United States of America Rodney G. Snow
vs
Karl S. Smith and Gerald Robert Ames Sumner J. Watch, rec.
Dean R. Mitchell, ret
(Conspiracy to Misapply Bank Funds
and Misapplication of Bank Fonds and
Aiding ard Abetting in Nisapplication
of Bank Funds)
Mo. 11

Cr 74-66

74

United States of America

9 — Walker, Jr., aka

(Palse Personation)

mo. 13

Kk. Jay Holdsworth and Dona 8. Holdsworth

ve
Kline D. Strong

(securities Exchange Act of 1934)

—

—

Harold 6. Christensen

Clifrora L. Ashton, E

¢ 139-70

W. 14

Ervin H. Stolle, Cipriano G. Alba

and Flor tan Lavoie

Arlandor Allen Jennings and Willard

Pease Company, Inc.

— —

C.R. Henriksen, Esq.
Edgar A. Brekke, Esq.

Carman E. Kipp, Esq.

' (Damages - Personal Injury (Motor Vehicle))

** 374-73

Everett E. Trees and Ruth E. Trees, a
partnership, dba Trees Treiler Sales
and Everett E. Trees & Ruth E. Trees

Johnson Livestock Co., a corporation
Johnson

and Thomas’ Floyd

* (Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle)

Brigham E. Roberts, E

. Robert Bayle, Esq.

Bo. 16

Tommy Bruce Bond

United States of America; °
ine Navy, & Capt. Frank c.

(Breach of Contract)

Wayne G. Petty, Esq.

S. Nelson Cay
Jackson Howard, Esq. .

C 354-73

No. 17

Randy F. Bishop
7 ve
Joetta Marlene Ogea

(Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle)

David E. West, Esq.

Glenn C. nannt, Esq.

Cc 377-73

No. 18

Eugene Earl Buttery ~

The Brianhead Corp., Brianhead Ltd.,
char les F. Gunnoc & Burton Nichols,
individually and as general partners of

Brian licad Ltd; Jorctta L. Gunnoe and

Sally P. Nichols

822322342 * 4

Fre

Robert FT. Orton, is.

Allan R. Earl, Esq.

Jay E. Jencen, Fag.

75

er 74-44 United States of Americe Max Wheeler
vs
Laura Marian Nichols Roger D. Sandack,appt
>
(Willful Pailure to File Individual
10. 19 Ihcome Tax Returns) ’
Cr 74-50 United States of America Ro@ney G. Snow
vs
Jay Victor Miller Sumner J. Hatch, ret.
wo. 20 (Criminal Contempt)
Cr 24-51 United States of America Rodney G. Snow
> vs
John J. Badcer, Jay Victor Miller, Sumner J. Hatch, ret.
and Evelyn Mitchener Richard Leecy, ret.
@Praudulent Sale of Securities; Sale of Unregistered
wo. 21 Securities; Interstate Transportation of False ly
Made Stock certificates: Interstate Transportation
- Of Implements Used in Falsely Making Stock Cercificetes)
c 74-161 Salt Laxe Valley Innkeepers Assoc., Inc. J. Thomas Greere, tse
Giftord W. rice, Esa
ve
Dec. 16 James Lynn, individually and as Secre- B. Lloyd Poelmean, Esc
tary of Housing & Urban Development; W. Robert right, Esc
Robert Posenicim, Robert J. Matuschex, Greg R. Hains, sg.
Salt Lake City Corp., Redevelopment John P. Herscel, Esc.
Agency of Salt wake City, Danny Wall, Salt Michael Hunter, Asst.
home, €ity Corrission as Recevelopment Agency, U.S. Attorney
„ . Garn, Conrad B. Hirrison, Jennings v.
Ho. 22 Phillips, Jr., Stephen. Harmsen, Glen Greener,
Hartnett-Shaw development ., Inc.
Ce 74-56 United States of America Rodney G. Snow
Jan. 6, 1975 *
ned Millett Kofford Bruce Coke, Esq.
20. 23 Fraud by Wire)
8 363-/2 Jane Doe Richard 1. Aaron, Cac
Magy ter: ede, “2,
vs
Evan E. Jones, er., Richard p. Vernon B. Romney
Lindsay, Douglas b. Johnson, Gerald
Burnett, Harry A. Alexander, L. R.
Roylance, Geraldine Atkinson, Sharron
WN. Bevan, Paul M. Christopherson, Clen
K. Vernon, beesie L. MNeiling, Marilyn
No. 24 Peterson and floy Taylor

(Violation of Civil Rights Under Public
Welfare Division of Family Services)

77

2 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT or UTA?
. =
CRIMINAL JURY TRIAL CALENDAR DEFORE MONONABLE WILLIS u. RIQCER 9
* *

CENTRAL DIVISION 3
N21.
COMMENCING TUCSDAY, MAY 28, 1974 =

; +t Ven bate Tue an N 7 Peers 1
THE CASES rr PROCEDE THEM. YOUR CASI WILL E TRIED AS SOON AS THERE Te | DIS-
POSITION OF THE CASS ACAD OF YOU. FREQUENTLY THE CASES ARE SETTLED fF rer.
TRIED, AND THE RESPONSIBILITY TO KELP romeo AND PREPARED TO GO TO TRIAL RLSTS
cn cou. IL.

* ., United States of America Rodney Snow
gat vs
Mo. 1
Sheldon Giles David A. Robinson, ret.

(alse & Fraudulent Withholding Statemert)

76
¢ 118-73 J. Bugene Robinson & Alice R. Stephens Devid K. Watkiss, Esq
vs
— 2. etm, tom & Ste Devid E. West, Esq.
Mo. 25 (imposition of Constructive Trusts)
c 74-31 Wilma Nielson Richard Giauque, Esq.
ve chitferd 1. Ashesa,fs
Bo. 26 (Personal Injury - Judgment)
cr 74-53 United States of America + Snow
. vs
| Willian Allon, international Chenscal wallace —
Development Corporation, and Golden Dean R. Mitchell, Cg
Rule Associates Lowell Haviks, Esq.
. 27 (Conspiracy; Fraudulent — oo Stock;
Ce 74-76 United States of America Rodney G. Snow
vs
Wallace Murphy Plum, aka Porky Plum David Bown, Esq.
Bo. 28 . (@eceipt in ICC of Stolen Silver)
er 74-11 United States of America Roéney G. Snow
* .
— David Atchley, aka Donald R. Decker Phil L. Hansen, ret.
(Theft from Interstate Shipment)
Cr 74-43 United States of America Rodney G. Snow
vs '
Grover Adelbert Sponable Jerome Mooney, Esq.
10. 30 (Tneft of Baggage From an Interstate Shipment) 0
Cr 74-34 United States of orte Rodney G. cn
vs
John W. Rich, J. Milton Rich, William Donn E. Cassity, Freq.
No. 31 D. Rich

(Bankruptcy Fraud)

Cr 4-11 United States of America Rodney Snow
421 vs
= David Atchley, aka Donald R. Decker Phil L. Barsen, ret.
(Theft from Interstate Shipment)
Cr 74-12 United States of America Rodney Snow
$ 1 '
3s a vs
oF Jack Vanekclenburg John D. O'Connell, ret.
(Distribution cf 4 Controlled Substance)
Cr 74-13 United States of America Ro¢ney Snow
6 —
gal vs
Ko. 4 Rand Spencer Mechar. John D. O'Connc!l, ret.

(Distribution of a Controlled Substance)

EXHIBIT 12

18-678 O - 76-6

78
Cr 74-14 United States of America Rodney Snow
sat vs 2
wo. 3 Tam Halling Sumner J. Match, ret.

@istribution of a Controlied Substance)

cr 74-16 _ SaaS — 4 Rodney Snow
g 27 vs
mo. 6 Mack Harris Thonpson Robert Van Sciver, ret.

@White Slave Traffic Act)

cr 74-20 7 Uni tea States of America Rodney Snow
8 47 vs
wo. 7 Bobby Joe Moore and William Noies Phil L. Hansen, ret.
Sauncers
@White Slave Traffic Act & Conspiracy)
Cr 74-22 United States of america Rouney Snow
5 **
Bo. 8 William D. Bond Pnii L. Bansen, ret.
(White Slave Traffic Act)
Cr 74-23 United States of America Rodncy Snow
fe —
Ko. 8 nr Lambertus Jansen, re*.
(Procurement of Airline Tickets t Transportation
for Purpose: of Interstate Travel & Prostitution:
& Enticcwwr. of a Femcle to Travel Interstate for
Purposes of Prostitution)
Cr 7-24 Vaitec States of America Rodicy Sno-
° 8 “=

(hnite Slave Traffic Act 6 Enticemeat of a Female)

79
Cr 74-25 United States of America Rodney Snow
5” K vs
* Clarence Earl bredley Galen Ross, ret.
(White Slave Traffic Act)
Cr 74-26 United States of America Rodney Snow
** *
. 22 Melvin Kay Neads Thomas P. Vuyk, ret.
(Unlawful Posscssion of Unregistered Firearms)
cr 74-27 United States of America Rodney Snow
2 vs
— 7 John Earl Worthen Galen Ross, ret.
te Transportation of Stolen
Securitics; and False Statement to
Government. Agency)
Cr 74-28 United States of Amerjca Rodney Snow
ve .
Mo. 14 1 r Mienen L. Hansen, ret.
Rac here! oe
: _ (Theft of Mail)
Cr 74-29 United States of America Rocncy Snow
* N
Norvin Tod Tripple, Richard Bryan Thomas R. Rloncuist,ret
10. 15 Wolladay, and Richard Eldon bons Kenneth Rothey, ret.
. Keith Biesing:r,. ret.
(Receiving Stolen Property
Transported in Interstate Commerce)
Cr 74-30 United States of Mor lea Rodney su-
vs
No. 16

A

Emil Clemons, Jr. Sumner J. "atch, ret.

{Internal Revenue Codc)

cr 74-33 United states of America Rodney Snow
vs
No. 17 Rex E. Foustal and David v. Pack Robert Van Sciver, ret.

(Taking More Migratory Birds Than Allowed)

Cr 74-36 United stetes of America Roancy Srow
vs
No. 18 Carmelo Santicso Cruz Phil L. Nansen, ret.

(Distribution of a Controlled Substance)

Cr 74-43 United States of America Rodney Snow
vs
Ho. 19 Grover Adelbert Sponable Jerome Mooncy, ret.

(Theft of Baggage from an Interstate Carrier)

Unrrep States Dietaicr Court ror THe Distarc: or Uran—Cernrrat Drvision
Unt States or Amenica v. Wu Hir Savace, Jr.

Vex. C. Rrromm,
Clerk.
To: Rodney G. Snow, Asst. U.S. Attorney, 200 U.S. Post Office & Courthouse
Building, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101.

Comes now Rodney G. Snow, Assistant United States Attorney, for and on
behalf of the United States of America, and hereby moves this honorable Court
ä ²· ²⅛m-m Gas Sie comme chews Gis Gast
as ows:

1. The United States did not receive notice of the Court's current trial calendar,
including the trial setting for the above referenced case, until the afternoon of
October 20, 1975.

2. At approximately 3:00 P.M. on October 20, 1975, the United States Marshal
for the District of Utah had in their hands the Subpoenas for witnesses in the
above referenced case.

3. Thus far the United States Marshal for the District of Utah has been unable
to locate two witnesses in the case, including one very crucial witness. The
crucial witness is Mr. Henry Allen, who was the payee of the Treasurer’s check
which is the subject of this lawsuit.

— CSD

— — Gy Go — 9

October, 1975.
United States Attorney.
Roprex G. Snow.
Assistant United States Attorney.
Ix run Unrrep Staves Distaicr Covet ror rue Distaict or Uran C u

Number of Arrest 292
Case no.
eS Jan.

. ———— —v—Ln i a 15
— Feb. 11, —
—— .... 8 Jan. 3 1976 121

— — .. 2 3
5 ̃ —y-— —1— — 133
444 2 SESS SS SO —— OS OS SNS SOS — 4

—— H · — .

AS OF MAY 10,

Date
Number of summons Days since
Case no. defendants served service
Dec. 1 146
— ſily:—ññůñůů— — 72 1 i 2
r ee e Feb. 128 Be
— A AT 1 188 2

ci y in tua:
1 Hit
a aga
. i> 30”
ig tg ty ai
1 I 55 14 11 :
1 ag 1 Hn ae?
, % live 1421 71
- ea | ste 115 155 7.

42 g 71 75
i
111115

3

i

a 15

11 4 Je

a 1

Id do. There's a question whether I'm

out. I don’t take these petty offenses,
They ought to run
pa

wr fet yonr Honor, that the petty offense justified the Court's atten-

10

WN th

22 * '
i 142
a, 1 E ;
1 0 P|
ee OE
it if *
11 Hi [i .
cho ai: i
i
; 8 8
11 hy 1
AF | 2 g
ifs: au ‘
. | oem
1 |
15
; UE: 1155 dats isu
Lie
i
101

l ae A8 k in 5? 1257555
8 : 5 2288825
M e al ig
: i tik 122155 1 fle J
liga HE 111 i Life 121115
i indie
i ee e
1 ity r papi i

1 1 eit a 1155 Ha. af
poe Aen age,
Cae teen
11 * 12128275 . 225
Pall ee
e e ili

Janice Mrrsunaca, CSR.
CrarminaL Docker, Unrrep States Distaicr Court
CR 75-10
THE UNITED STATES VS. RICK 0. RASMUSSEN
| ATTORNEYS

For U.S.: Max D. Wheeler, Asst. U.S. Atty., 200 U.S. Post Office & Courthouse,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

For Defendant: John Bucher, Esq. (ret.), Suite 271 Cottonwood Mall, 4835
Highiand Drive, Holladay, Utah 84117

In THE UNirep States Dreraict Court ror tHe Distarct oF Uran CENTRAL
Drvisi0on

MOTION FOB EMPANELING OF A GRAND JURY

United States Attorney, District of Utah.

85

In THE UNiTep States District Court ror THE District or UTAH
CENTRAL Drivision

ORDER IN BE GRAND JURY EMPANELED FEBRUARY 10, 1975

Upon the advice of the United States Attorney that all matters originally set
for presentation to the above Grand Jury have been presented and have resulted
in — of Indictments, with certain exceptions hereafter particularly

It Is Hereby Ordered that the matters hereafter presented to the Grand Jury
empanelled in the Central Division, District of Utah, on February 10, 1975,
shall be limited exclusively to the following subject-matter, some portions of
which the Grand Jury has already commenced investigating :

1, That certain investigation of antitrust violations, consisting of price fixing
and other anticompetitive conduct in the egg industry in the District of Utah,
8 0c

2. Those certain investigations of antitrust violations, consisting of price
* other anticompetitive conduct, in the grocery and beef industries in
the riet of Utah, with respect to which an initial group of subpoenas have
heretofore been issued and initial production of documents has to date supplied
more than 200,000 documents.

3. That certain investigation of fraud in the acquisition of approximately
eight million dollars of Small Business Administration funds for the use of,
or transmitted through, a certain Small Business Investment Company, with
respect to which an initial group of seventy-three subpoenas duces tecum have
heretofore been issued and in response to which more than two thousand docu-
ments have been produced to date.

4. That certain investigation of fraud in the acquisition of moneys from the
Veterans Administration by a local corporation offering certain correspondence
courses and classes for Veterans, with respect to which an initial group of sub-
SS atts ee days of testimony heard by the

rand Jury.

5. Presentation of evidence for indictment of those persons who, while the
Grand Jury is empanelied, refuse to waive indictment.

Dated this 25th day of April, 1975.

The Court:
* WILus W.

RITTER,
Chief Judge, United States District Court, District of Utah.
In THE Unrrep States Distaicr Court ron THE District oF UTAH

REQUEST THAT GRAND JURY BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN SESSION, AND THAT THE
COURT'S ORDER OF APRIL 25, 1975, LIMITING THE MATTERS WHICH MAY BE PRE-
SENTED TO THE GRAND JURY BE QUASHED

Comes now Ramon M. Child, United States Attorney for the District of Utah,
and respectfully requests this Honorable Court to permit the Grand Jury em-
panelled on February 10, 1975 to continue to sit, and to conclude matters now
pending before it. :

It is also respectfully requested that this Court's Order of April 25, 1975, wistch
limits the matters which the United States Attorney’s Office may present to the
Grand Jury be vacated in order that the United States Attorney's Office may
present other matters to the Grand Jury which the public interest requires the
Grand Jury to consider.

Dated this 4th day of December, 1975.
Ramon M. CHIrp,

United States Attorney.
In tHE Unrrep States District Court For THE District or UTAH

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE WILLIS W. RITTER, CHIEF JUDGE

Report of the Grand Jury, Thursday, December 4, 1975, Salt Lake City, Utah.

For the Government: Ramon M. Child, United States Attorney, 200 U.S.
Courthouse, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101.

Podney G. Snow, Assistant U.S. Attorney.

For the Grand Jury : Lund, Foreman.

86

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1975, 2:20 P.M.

The Covrrt. I assume this grand jury has a report.

Mr. Snow. They do have a report, your Honor.

The Court. Come up here.

Mr. Cub. May I approach the bench?

The Court. Yes.

( Unreported vench conference between Court and counsel. )

The Court. I understand you have a report, Mr. Foreman.

The Foreman. Yes, I do, your Honor.

The Court. All right. Would you read it.

The Foreman. We, the grand jurors duly impaneled, sworn, and charged in
said court on the 10th day of February 1975, respectfully report as follows:

“That the Grand Jury has been in session since February 10, 1975, and at
each and every session thereof there have been in attendance all of the grand
jurors so impaneled and sworn, with the following exceptions, excused from
attendance as indicated on the report.

“That at each and every session thereof there have not been less than 16 mem-
bers in actual attendance.

“That we have considered 5 alleged violations of the statutes of the United
States; that we have found 4 true bills, which are returned herewith into court,
properly endorsed by the Foreman of the Grand Jury; and that we have de-
clined to return indictments on zero cases presented.

“In addition, the Grand Jury is currently considering other matters presented
by the United States Attorney, but is not ready to report on them at the present
time, it being the intention of the Grand Jury that as soon as the other matters
have been presented in full the Grand Jury will make a further report to the
Court.”

The Court. Well, the district attorney got his oar in on that one, didn't he.

Mr. Cur. I think not, your Honor.

The Covert. You mean you didn't draw that document?

Mr. Enns. I didn't draw it. Mr. Snow has been attending the Grand Jury.

Mr. Snow. That's the standard form we've always used, your Honor.

Mr. Cup. It's probably the same language as the last report the jury did.

The Court. I don't think so, but it doesn't make any difference now.

Thank you very much. Is there any-——

Mr. Cn. Your Honor, I have the 4 indictments that were returned by the
Grand Jury, and I move that they be received by the Clerk.

The Court. All right. They may be filed. And I suppose you want warrants
issued, do you, or not?

Mr. Cm. Yes, your Honor. We want summonses issued on 3 of them.

Mr. Snow. They're all summonses, your Honor. We request summonses.

The Court. Summonses will issue. And there are no secret indictments, I sup-
pose?

Mr. Cup. There are not.

The Court. Is there bail recommended?

Mr. Snow. No bail has been recommended.

The Court. All right. Then you report to the Clerk and take your seat; and
I'll say a few things to the Grand Jury.

You have been serving this Court since last February, as your foreman just
told me, and you have served us well, and this is much longer than I ordinarily
keep a Grand Jury. I was persuaded to keep you folks longer because of matters
that the Government wanted to present.

Now. some of those matters have not yet been presented; and on at least one
there has been some testimony before you which has not been completed that the
Government told me they would complete by December, and they have failed to
complete that They have carried on no investigations for several months, as a
matter of fact.

And so I think we should discharge the Grand Jury: and I hereby do so, and
I do it with the thanks of the Court, and I'll say to you that you have served
us real well; and I have the honor and the position that I occupy here of repre-
senting the people of the United States of America, and T want to thank you for
your assistance in the administration of justice on the criminal side of this court.

Drive carefully on your way home. This is the end of your service. Go to the
Clerk’s Office when you leave the courtroom, and be sure to give the clerks the
information necessary, so they can get your pay voucher to you. You're excused.

87

The Foreman. Could I take a moment of your time, please? -

The Court. Sure.

The Foreman, The Grand Jury would like to thank you for the opportunity that
we have had of serving as federal grand jurors in representing the people of the
United States of America; but we are deeply concerned, and we have been for
some time about the fact of unfinished business.

We haven't felt it a hardship, you know, to meet and to act in this capacity;
and we would like to at this time, with your permission, to complete the investi-
gations that we still haven't completed.

The Court. Well, I think I'm acquainted with that, and I've already alluded
to it.

So we will do as I say.

You're discharged. Go to the Clerk's Office. :

I, Ronald F. Hubbard, official reporter in the U.S. District Court, do hereby
certify the preceding transcript to be true and correct, set forth this 27th day of
February 1976, at Salt Lake City, Utah.

RoNALD F. HUBBARD.

JAN UART 23, 1974.
Hon. WIIns W. Rr.

Chief Judge, United States District Court.
C. Nevson Day,
United States Attorney.

Cases which need to be presented to a Grand Jury and cases which merit Grand
Jury investigation.

In response to your request, find attached a list of cases which this office needs
to present to a Grand Jury. Hopefully the list is complete; however, there may be

other cases presented to this office by the various investigative agencies which
will need Grand Jury attention.

We feel that many of the cases on the attached list merit a thorough Grand
Jury investigation, and in the White Slave Act cases we need to make firm the

testimony of the various victims. Several of these victims have been beaten and
threatened.

The stock fraud cases are complicated and involved and will take some time
to untangle. Some of the potential defendants listed may be in

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_2257%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.