# Petition — Bowman v. United States

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_1517%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition
- **Published:** January 1, 1981
- **Citation:** 451 U.S. 912

## Text

October Term, 1980

ROBERT BOWMAN,

Petitioner,
vs. A
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, S
Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT

IRVING ANOLIK and |
McCORMACK & DAMIANI
Attorneys for Petitioner
225 Broadway
New York, New York 10007
(212) 732-3050

4333 LUTZ APPELLATE PRINTERS, INC.
NY (212) 840-9494 © (516) 222-1606 © (914) 683-9363
NJ (201) 257-6850 © PA (215) 563-5587 © DC (202) 783-7288 © MA (617) 227-1133

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether petitioner was denied a fair trial by virtue of the
fact that his conviction was obtained as a result of unexpected
and unanticipated evidence after an assurance by the prosecutor
that no such evidence existed, i.e., a document known as Exhibit
7 (Fifth Amendment, United States Constitution)?

2. Whether petitioner was improperly indicted on two
counts of perjury when in actuality the grand jury was obviously
investigating a single continuing crime and, consequently, only
one count should have been returned?

3. Whether under the doctrine of multiplicity, the nisi prius
court should have dismissed one of the two counts of the
indictment since both counts really charged only a single
offense?

4. Whether the questions posed to petitioner in the grand
jury were material to the investigation?

5. Whether the petitioner received a fair trial?
PARTIES

The .parties in the United States District Court and the
United States Court of Appeals were Robert Bowman,
defendant-appellant, petitioner herein, and the United States of
America, respondent. There have been no change in parties.

’%

’**.

il

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cenestines “FRRRNNS iG i eb Sis ices dacka aden ssc

Parties

I COW nice cde aivne ca obugyt bese eee weberin

PE oe eo kick Reo y hee kbe kes t oe unebet ne eu

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved .........

watemamh OF Te: EO AN i akdb oc ce tik Cds ciohac cade areee

e

[

I].

Reasons for Granting the Writ:

The testimony of petitioner before two separate
sittings of the grand jury was not palpably false on
its face, the nisi prius court’s denial of motions to
dismiss the indictment was, therefore, error. This is
reinforced by the fact that in any event Bowman’s
testimony was not material to the matters under
investigation by the grand jury. ..........eeeee-

Petitioner was treated unfairly by the prosecutor.
Not only was his indictment predicated upon
insufficient matter and insufficent evidence in the
grand jury to say nothing of hearsay, but in addition,
the tactics of the Government at trial prejudiced

Page

il

iti

Contents
Page

Bowman when they suddenly and without prior
notice produced Exhibit 7 which tended to
corroborate the testimony of the important witness
Spinale. This occurred after the prosecutor had
assured petitioner’s counsel that there were no
CHEE Sia x Ree aie bon ee bs cub a vere gee a wh peduete 19

Ill. Since the indictment herein really charged a single
offense in two separate counts, the doctrine of
multiplicity should have compelled the trial judge to
at least dismiss the second count, even assuming,
arguendo, that the first count was viable. ....... 25

A. The court erred in not granting the motions of
the defense and exacerbated this error by
refusing to charge the jury on the issue of
“value” of any item given to Bowman. ...... 29

IN a es El, apa iets mabe sine Ure oe OR ae wed eaeee 29

«

TABLE OF CITATIONS

Cases Cited:
Barbee v. Warden, 331 F. 2d 842 (4 Cir. 1964) .......... 19
Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81 (1955) ........cceceees 27

Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 63 L. Ed. 2d 979 ... II

Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 33 L. Ed. 2d 626 ..... II

a
a

iv
Contents
Page
Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S. Ct. 595
BUFR ok thks ees o WE ee Che Sale 00> 4cadavuewerans 15
Coopedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 ................ 22

Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100, 99 S. Ct. 2190
(1979) see e ence eee e een e sense eeeeeeeseeseseeueees 15

Gebhard v. United States, 422 F. 2d 281 (9th Cir. 1970) .. 27

Oe Wii I CREO PS MD ace dine waacs ee. 6 Oka 6 Rose aS Som. Ll
er i 2 ese, Pe CEE iis cin ¥ te bea nee web ek eam 27
Markham v. United States, 160 U.S. 319 (1895) ......... 13

Masima v. United States, 296 F. 2d 871 (8th Cir. 1961) .. 28

Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1 ..... cece eee eee 23
PORE: Ve TROND, SOO ie COE bo ls vb chwedenseeleveenta 19
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) ........... 26
Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808 (1971) ............. 16
Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968) ...........eeee- 28
Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263 (1929) ........... 10

United States v. Aloisio, 440 F. 2d 705, cert. denied,
as LT MRE boa k edd peadoevscéds cheesnnee 20

Vv

Contents
Page

United States v. Archer, 486 F. 2d 670 (2d Cir. 1973) ....
ee kia eens Sule lean as ke walede eas « 16, 17, 18

United States v. Arcuri, 405 F. 2d 691 (2 Cir. 1968), cert.
Se Oe SPIEL Er ob Ca «Woe (vince wacavbcecccecas 20

United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (1971) .............. 16
United States v. Baum, 482 F. 2d 1325 (2 Cir. 1973) ..... 21
United States v. Benedetto, 571 F. 2d 1246 (2 Cir. 1978).. 20
United States v. Birrell, 470 F. 2d 113 (2 Cir. 1972) ...-12, 13

United States v. Cobert, 227 F. Supp. 915 (S.D. Cal.
SE Caine ah eA ae sce buns e bed dalew ose cdbeoe 15

United States v. Cook, 489 F. 2d 286 (9th Cir. 1973) .... 15
United States v. De Cicco, 435 F. 2d 478 (2 Cir. 1970) ... 20
United States v. Di Guanzia, 213 F. Supp. 232 (Ill. 1973).. 24

United States v. Dixon, Docket No. 75-1317 (2d Cir. March
SE, ETE bhi cen Nha ek sake Chek te ceee ve Rees 27

United States v. Doulin, 538 F. 2d 466 (2 Cir. 1976) ... 11, 27

United States v. Doulin, 538 F. 2d 466 (2d Cir.), cert.
ee” AAP Te. Be CAST ov caves cr tide lectacenves 10, 11

United States v. Dunn, 577 F. 2d 119 (10 Cir. 1978) ..... 15

vi

Contents -
Page

United States v. Esposito, 358 F. Supp. 1032 (N.D. IIl.
PRON Sip + Carle b nhs baled be ka Vee Cen eae twas Oe 15

United States v. Estepa, 471 F. 2d 1132 (2 Cir.) ......... 20

United States v. Freedman, 445 F. 2d 1220 (2d Cir. 1971)..
Leech urk Me bea bh NAS Y eas eka Caen hemees i0, 11, 12, 13

United States v. Gibson, 310 F. 2d 79 (2 Cir. 1962) ...... 25

United States v. Goodman, 285 F. 2d 378 (C.A. 5. 1960), .
ee ee Oe OF SO So ck cake eee ob adsmnavarces 25

United States v. Gregory, 369 F. 2d 185 (D.C. Cir. 1966).. 21
United States v. Gubelman, 571 F. 2d 1252 (2 Cir. 1978).. 20
United States v. Koonce, 485 F. 2d 374 (8th Cir. 1973) .. 16
United States v. Laikin, 583 F. 2d 968 (3 Cir. 1978) ..... 16
United States v. Lattimore, 127 F. Supp. 405 (D.D.C. 1955) = 15
United States v. Laut, 17 F.R.D. 31 (S.D.N.Y. 1955) ..... 13
United States v. Lazaros, 480 F. 2d 174 (6th Cir. 1973) .. 28

United States v. Lubomski, 277 F. Supp. 713 (D.C. Ill.
IOOTR soci isar ntl Pibw edeknned ceveabb ee etek canal 25

United States v. Mancuso, 485 F. 2d 275 (2d Cir. 1973) ..
La vada bee G Uk 6 bday seve Rees eeu adhered 10, 13, 28

vii

Contents
Page

United States v. Mamber, 127 F. Supp. 925(D. Mass. 1955) 28

United States v. Marchisio, 344 F. 2d 653 (2d Cir. 1965).. II

United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395 (1974) ............. 16
United States v. McFarland, 371 F. 2d 701 (2d Cir. 1966),
Cere; GN BOT tha POO CIGOIP EN cb cine cecscenceces 11
United States v. O’Connor, 580 F. 2d 38 ................ 20
United States v. Pastor, 419 F. Supp. 1318 (D.C.N.Y.
PE SUC EWES Sb Rhee Ae haath sb Usedweeas 20
United States v. Poole, 379 F. 2d 645 (7 Cir. 1967) ...... 19
United States v. Remington, 191 F. 2d 246 (2 Cir. 1951),
Rt GONE Re BET cs Ravkrbuse ccecdaadveseas 23
United States v. Stone, 429 F. 2d 138 (2d Cir. 1970) ..... 10

United States v. Tavoularis, 515 F. 2d 1070 (2d Cir. 1975).. 16
United States v. Taylor, 464 F. 2d 240 (2 Cir. 1972) ... 24, 25
United States v. Toscanino, 500 F. 2d 267 (2d Cir. 1974).. 16
United States v. Wall, 371 F. 2d 398 (6th Cir. 1967) ..... 15

United States v. Whitted, 325 F. Supp. 520(D.C. Neb. 1971) 24

’%

?-.%

vill
Contents
Page
Statutes Cited:
Se AOE ech de CK st0 swe ndeteeaevecndwckh«nanmeyaes 2
Pe Ee ED 50 6 buh 6c c's Ud bar enenede dacs we pweeweKad 2, 14
SOM as = OP OE ko rd baka salvakios

4a

Relevant Constitutional and Statutory Provisions

(2) each declaration was made within the
period of the statute of limitations for the
offense charged under this section.

In any prosecution under this section, the falsity
of a declaration set forth in the indictment or
information shall be established sufficient for
conviction by proof that the defendant while
under oath made irreconcilably contradictory
declarations material to the point in question in
any proceeding before or ancillary to any court
or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an
indictment or information made pursuant to the
first sentence of this subsection that the
defendant at the time he made each declaration
believed the declaration was true.

(d) Where, in the same continuous court or
grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is
made, the person making the declaration admits
such declaration to be false, such admission shall
bar prosecution under this section if, at the time
the admission is made, the declaration has not
substantially affected the proceeding, or it has
not become manifest that such falsity has been or
will be exposed.

(e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under
this section is sufficient for conviction. It shall
not be necessary that such proof be made by any
particular number of witnesses or by
documentary or other type of evidence.”

4. 18 U.S.C. §1951, Interference with commerce by threats
or violence.

“(a) Whoever in any way or degree
obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the
movement of any article or commodity in

5a

Relevant Constitutional and Statutory Provisions

commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts
or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens
physical violence to any person or property in
furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything
in violation of this section shall be fined not more
than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty
years, or both.

(b) As used in this section—

(1) The term ‘robbery’ means the
unlawful taking or obtaining of personal
property from the person or in the
presence of another, against his will, by
means of actual or threatened force, or
violence, or fear of inquiry, immediate or
future, to his person or property, or
property in his custody or possession, or
the person or property of a relative or
member of his family or of anyone in his
company at the time of the taking or
obtaining.

(2) The term ‘extortion’ means the
obtaining of property from another, with
his consent, induced by wrongful use of
actual or threatened force, violence, or
fear, or under color of official right.

(3) The term ‘commerce’ means
commerce within the District of
Columbia, or any Territory or Possession
of the United States; all commerce
between any point in a State, Territory,
Possession, or the District of Columbia
and any point outside thereof; all
commerce between points within the same
State through any place outside such

’*

°°.

6a
Relevant Constitutional and Statutory Provisions

State; and all other commerce over which
the United States has jurisdiction.

(c) This section shall not be construed to
repeal, modify or affect section 17 of Title 15,
sections 52, 101-115, 151-166 of Title 29 or
sections 151-188 of Title 45.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_1517%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.