Opposition Brief — Bratko v. United States

_ In the Supreme Court of the United States

q Oocroser TERM, 1972

No. 72-828

KENNETH BRATKO, PETITIONER

v.

UntrTep States oF AMERICA

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION

After a jury trial in the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Illinois, petitioner was

convicted of conspiracy to steal goods moving in an

interstate shipment, and of theft of certain cameras,

photographic material, and film constituting part of an

interstate shipment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and

659." He was sentenced to a total of 10 years’ imprison-

ment.

The court of appeals affirmed on September 29, 1972

*Co-defendants Emil Crovedi and Roy Neilsen have also filed

petitions for writs of certiorari, which raise an independent issue.

See Nos. 72-5815 and 72-5824.

(1)

(Pet. App. A) and denied a petition for a rehearing

(and suggestion for rehearing en banc) on November

2, 1972 (Pet. App. B). An application for an extension

of time within which to file a petition for a writ of

certiorari was denied by Mr. Justice Rehnquist on

December 4, 1972. The petition for a writ of certiorari

was not filed until December 6, 1972, and is therefore

out of time under Rule 22(2) of the Rules of this Court.

There is in any event no cause for further review.

Petitioner contends that there was an improper lim-

itation on his right to cross-examine government wit-

nesses as to their present addresses and employment.

The trial court sustained objections to these questions

after a voir dire hearing in which it was determined

that the witnesses had reason to fear for their personal

safety. The relevant factual background showing that

statements had been made threatening the lives of these

witnesses and that they had ample reason to fear that

' 2 threats were serious is contained in the opinion

of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 2-3). In addition, as

the court noted, the witnesses were not strangers to

the defense ; they were alleged co-conspirators and ad-

mitted participants in the crimes, and the defense was

fully able to cross-examine them on issues relating to

their credibility without disclosure of their current

residence."

Based on those facts and examination of the relevant

authorities, the court of appeals rejected petitioner's

*A somewhat different issue might be presented if petitioner

could suggest some special or particular prejudice that might have

resulted from failure to obtain answers to these questions, but no

such specific prejudice has been claimed.

claim. This issue is also thoroughly canvassed in United

States v. Saletko, 452 F. 2d 193, 196 (C.A. 7), certiorari

denied, 405 U.S. 1040." We rely upon the reasoning of

those decisions in urging that the present petition fcr

a writ of certiorari should be denied.

Respectfully submitted.

Exwre N. Gaiswot,

Solicitor General.

* Saletko arose out of the same factual circumstances and involved

one of the same witnesses as did the instant case. In addition to

the cases cited in Saletko on the decision to refuse disclosure, see

United States v. Lawler, 413 F. 2d 622, 627 (C.A. 7), certiorari

denied, 396 U.S. 1046.

DUS Government Printing Often, 1973—6F3-792/482