 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
US OPPOSING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS FOR JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
QUESTIONNAIRE OIL JUROR COURT MARSH DISTRICT UNITED STATES MOTIONS PANEL GREENEVILLE APPALACHIAN OIL VENIRE PARTIES VOIR DIRE HAYTER OIL RESPONSE SONNY WAYNE PUBLICITY CHARGES TENNESSEE MARSH PETROLEUM JURY DEFENSE CONTRAST ATTORNEYS WIDESPREAD GASOLINE COUNSEL POTENTIAL JURORS |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ))
v. )) Crim. No. CR-2-93-46
HAYTER OIL COMPANY, INC. OF GREENEVILLE, )
TENNESSEE d/b/a MARSH PETROLEUM )
COMPANY and SONNY WAYNE MARSH, ))
Defendants. )
RESPONSE OF THE UNITED STATES
OPPOSING DEFENDANTS HAYTER OIL COMPANY AND
SONNY WAYNE MARSH'S MOTIONS FOR A JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE
Defendants Hayter Oil Company, Inc. of Greeneville,
Tennessee d/b/a Marsh Petroleum Company ("Marsh Petroleum") and
Sonny Wayne Marsh move for an order authorizing them to (i)
compile a juror questionnaire, (ii) submit it to the jury venire
through the clerk's office, and (iii) obtain the responses for
defense counsel's review "as soon as possible". Defendants claim
their motions are justified by "the nature of the case, involving
high profile defendants, extensive long term pretrial publicity,
and the anticipation of a lengthy, complex trial."
This case, however, is no different than any other
1
criminal conspiracy case filed in this district. The United
States does not anticipate a lengthy trial, as defendants contend,
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
US OPPOSING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR TRIAL SUBPOENAS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MOTION SUBPOENAS DEFENDANT MARSH UNITED STATES GREENEVILLE OIL BUSINESS TAX UNTIMELINESS GASOLINE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT TENNESSEE FEDERAL RULE DISCOVERY APPALACHIAN OIL NIXON NECESSITY DELAY SUPPORT CHARGE ESQUIRE CONTINUANCE JURY INDICTMENT MEMORANDUM MATERIALITY FAILS PRICES |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ))
v. )) Crim. No. CR-2-93-46
HAYTER OIL COMPANY, INC. OF GREENEVILLE,)
TENNESSEE d/b/a MARSH PETROLEUM )
COMPANY AND SONNY WAYNE MARSH, ))
Defendants. )
RESPONSE OF THE UNITED STATES OPPOSING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR TRIAL SUBPOENAS UNDER FEDERAL RULE 17(c)
Defendant Sonny Wayne Marsh moves for an Order
authorizing the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum for the pretrial
production of city and county business tax records, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). The subpoenas are
directed to the County Clerk of Greene County, Tennessee and the
City Recorder for Greeneville, Tennessee. Defendant Marsh's
motion attempts to subvert the rule that subpoenas are not
pretrial discovery devices in criminal cases. Moreover, defendant
Marsh's motion should also be denied because it is untimely, and
because the information he seeks is neither evidentiary nor
relevant and, therefore, it is not necessary for trial
preparation. ARGUMENT
Defendant Marsh's Untimely Motion Should Be Denied
Because He Seeks To Use Subpeonas As An Improper Discovery Device
Defendant's motion should be denied because it is
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
Government Exhibit # 6TH-CIRCUIT OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CONSPIRACY PRICES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT GASOLINE PRICES INTERPRETATION CIR GREENEVILLE HAYTER OIL MARSH SHERMAN ACT DEFENDANT HAYTER TENNESSEE VIOLATION OIL COMPANY ANTITRUST GUIDELINE CROSS-APPELLEE GOVERNMENT CONVICTIONS PRICE-FIXING MARSH PETROLEUM COMPANY SENTENCING AGREEMENT DEFENDANTS ARGUE CIRCUIT JUDGES CITATIONS SONNY WAYNE MARSH RETAIL GASOLINE PRICES CONSPIRATORS |
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 24 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 1995 FED App. 0115P (6th Cir.) File Name: 95a0115p.06 Nos. 94-5670/5712/5713 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. HAYTER OIL COMPANY, INC. OF GREENEVILLE, TENNESSEE, d/b/a Marsh Petroleum Company, and SONNY WAYNE MARSH, Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants. > ON APPEAL from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee __________________ Decided and Filed April 17, 1995 __________________ Before: MILBURN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges; MILES,[*] District Judge.SNIPPETS: |
|
4
.
PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANT UNITED STATES INSTRUCTIONS REQUEST REASONABLENESS JURY COURT LAW VERDICT CONSPIRACY WITNESSES ACT CREDIBILITY GREENEVILLE HAYTER OIL COMPANY PRICES AUTHORITY AGREEMENT PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS INDICTMENT GOVERNMENT TESTIMONY INNOCENCE INCONSISTENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INFERENCES RECOLLECTION APPLICABLE MODIFICATIONS |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ))
v. )) Crim. No. CR-2-93-46
HAYTER OIL COMPANY, INC. OF GREENEVILLE, )
TENNESSEE d/b/a MARSH PETROLEUM )
COMPANY AND SONNY WAYNE MARSH, ))
Defendants. )
UNITED STATES' PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30 and
the Court's Order of August 6, 1993, the United States submits
these proposed jury instructions and requests that the Court
instruct the jury on the law contained in these instructions. The
United States respectfully reserves the right to supplement,
withdraw or modify these requests depending upon the evidence
presented, the arguments of counsel, and the requests for
instructions, if any, filed by the defendants.
Dated: November , 1993 Respectfully submitted,
William D. Dillon
William G. Traynor
Attorneys
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
75 Spring St., S.W., Suite
1176
0
SNIPPETS:
|
|
5
.
US OPPOSING DEFENDANT MARSHS MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
UNITED STATES HAYTER OIL MOTION INDICTMENT OIL COMPANY PARTICULARS BILL RETAIL GASOLINE PRICES DEMAND GREENEVILLE COURT DISCOVERY MARSH RESPONSE CONSPIRACY GOVERNMENT EVIDENCE CO-CONSPIRATORS DISTRICT TENNESSEE UNITED STATES OPPOSING FIX RETAIL GASOLINE EVIDENTIARY DETAIL GRAND JURY SITTING SONNY WAYNE MARSH MEMORANDUM AGREEMENTS PROPER SCOPE LEGITIMATE BILL |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ))
v. )) Crim. No. CR-2-93-46
HAYTER OIL COMPANY, INC. OF GREENEVILLE, )
TENNESSEE d/b/a MARSH PETROLEUM )
COMPANY AND SONNY WAYNE MARSH, ))
Defendants. )
RESPONSE OF THE UNITED STATES OPPOSING DEFENDANT
HAYTER OIL COMPANY'S MOTION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS
Defendant Hayter Oil Company moves for a bill of particulars
that demands the details of both the evidence against it and the
government's theory of prosecution. While the defendant's demands
exceed the proper scope of a legitimate bill of particulars, most
of the information it seeks has already been provided in
discovery, is available from other sources, or is contained in the
indictment. For these reasons, defendant's motion is without
merit and should be denied.
I. FACTS
On July 21, 1993, a grand jury sitting in the Eastern
District of Tennessee returned an indictment against defendant
Hayter Oil Company and its president and owner, Sonny Wayne Marsh.
The indictment charged them with conspiring to fix retail
gasoline prices in the Greeneville, Tennessee area, in violation
SNIPPETS:
|
|
6
.
US OPPOSING DEFENDANT HOCS MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PARTICULARS BILL EVIDENCE MOTION GOVERNMENT DISCOVERY INDICTMENT ACTS UNITED STATES HAYTER OIL GREENEVILLE PRICE GASOLINE REQUESTS CONSPIRACY LEGITIMATE BILL ANTITRUST DEFENDANT MARSH GRAND JURY FIX RETAIL CO-CONSPIRATORS MATERIALS CENTRAL FACTS AGREEMENT HAYTER OIL COMPANY CONSPIRING VIOLATIONS OVERT ACTS TENNESSEE AREA |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ))
v. ) Crim. No. CR-2-93-46
)
HAYTER OIL COMPANY, INC. OF GREENEVILLE, )
TENNESSEE d/b/a MARSH PETROLEUM )
COMPANY AND SONNY WAYNE MARSH, ))
Defendants. )
RESPONSE OF THE UNITED STATES OPPOSING
DEFENDANT MARSH'S MOTION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS
Defendant Sonny Wayne Marsh seeks evidence in a motion for a bill of
particulars that demands that the government reveal the details regarding
the evidence it will seek to introduce at trial and the theory on which it
intends to proceed. The demands in his motion range far beyond the scope
of a legitimate bill of particulars. Moreover, to a large extent,
defendant frivolously moves for information that he has already received in
discovery. Consequently, defendant's motion should be denied.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Chronology
On July 21, 1993, a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of
Tennessee returned an indictment against defendant Marsh and his
corporation, Hayter Oil Co., charging them with conspiring to fix retail
gasoline prices in the Greeneville, Tennessee area, in violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1. Defendant Marsh's counsel was
SNIPPETS:
|
|
7
.
US OPPOSING DEFENDANT HAYTER OIL MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF ITS CO-CONSPIRATORS STATEMENTS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MOTION HAYTER OIL UNITED STATES DISCOVERY CO-CONSPIRATORS OIL COMPANY COURT RESPONSE OPPOSING DEFENDANT CIRCUIT DISCLOSURE GOVERNMENT PARTICULARS GREENEVILLE REJECTING JENCKS ACT BILL TENNESSEE EVIDENCE MARSH CIR ROBERTS JACKSON ESQUIRE DISTRICT SONNY WAYNE PLEADINGS COUNSEL ROGERS |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ))
v. )) Crim. No. CR-2-93-46
HAYTER OIL COMPANY, INC. OF GREENEVILLE, )
TENNESSEE d/b/a MARSH PETROLEUM )
COMPANY AND SONNY WAYNE MARSH, ))
Defendants. )
RESPONSE OF THE UNITED STATES OPPOSING
DEFENDANT HAYTER OIL COMPANY'S MOTION
FOR DISCLOSURE OF ITS CO-CONSPIRATORS' STATEMENTS
Defendant Hayter Oil Company moves this Court for an order
granting the pretrial discovery of all statements of its
co-conspirators and all other statements that the government will
attribute to it at trial. Defendant's motion is based on
readings of the rules of procedure and evidence that the federal
circuit courts of appeals have consistently rejected as
groundless and wholly without merit. For this reason,
defendant's motion should be denied.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On July 21, 1993, a grand jury sitting in the Eastern
District of Tennessee returned an indictment against defendant
Hayter Oil Company of Greeneville, Tennessee d/b/a Marsh
Petroleum Company ("Hayter Oil Company") and its president and
owner, Sonny Wayne Marsh. The indictment charged them with
conspiring to fix retail gasoline prices in the Greeneville,
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
