United States v. Frances Felicia Stith
479 F.2d 315, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10251 (1973)
Rule of Law:
A preliminary hearing is not required if a grand jury returns an indictment prior to the hearing, as the indictment satisfies the hearing's underlying purpose. Additionally, minor, non-prejudicial changes to an indictment that are matters of form rather than substance do not necessitate resubmission to a grand jury.
Facts:
- Frances Felicia Stith was employed as a teller at the Citizens Bank of University City in St. Louis County, Missouri.
- On June 16, 1972, the bank discovered a $260.00 shortage in Miss Stith's drawer.
- Miss Stith was relieved of her job at the bank but offered no explanation for the shortage.
- On June 21, 1972, an FBI agent interviewed Miss Stith at the bank after advising her of her rights and obtaining her signature on a waiver of rights form.
- During the interview, Miss Stith confessed to taking the $260.00.
- Miss Stith later testified in her own defense, denying that she took the money, but admitting she had signed both the confession and the waiver of rights form.
- Miss Stith possessed three years of college education.
Procedural Posture:
- Frances Stith was indicted by a federal grand jury under a one-count indictment for embezzlement of funds from a federally insured bank, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656.
- A preliminary hearing for Miss Stith was initially scheduled for July 3, 1972, and subsequently continued to July 12, 1972, over her counsel's objection.
- On July 10, 1972, a federal grand jury indicted Miss Stith, leading to the cancellation of the scheduled preliminary hearing.
- A hearing on a motion to suppress Miss Stith's confession was held, during which two witnesses testified.
- The trial court found that Miss Stith made an intelligent and knowing waiver of her rights and that the confession was admissible.
- Miss Stith was convicted in the trial court.
- Miss Stith appealed her conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a federal grand jury indictment obviate the need for a preliminary hearing, even if the hearing was scheduled and then not held, thus denying the defendant an opportunity for early discovery? 2. Is a change to an indictment specifying the correct county of the victim bank a "material" change requiring resubmission to a grand jury? 3. Were Miranda warnings insufficient where Frances Stith claimed she was not properly advised of her right to an appointed attorney during interrogation, despite reading and signing a waiver form that met established requirements?
Opinions:
Majority - PER CURIAM
No, a grand jury indictment does obviate the need for a preliminary hearing, even if the hearing was scheduled and then not held. The court held that the preliminary hearing's primary legal justification is to ensure probable cause exists to hold an accused, preventing baseless incarceration. Once a grand jury returns a true bill (an indictment), this purpose is satisfied, rendering the preliminary hearing superfluous. Citing Spinelli v. United States, the court noted that while a preliminary hearing might offer discovery benefits, a defendant has no absolute right to such benefits if the underlying purpose of the hearing is supplanted by grand jury action. No, a change to an indictment specifying the correct county of the victim bank is not a "material" change requiring resubmission to a grand jury. The court found that changing the bank's location from the "City of St. Louis" to "St. Louis County" was a matter of form, not substance. This minor correction caused no possible prejudice to Miss Stith, as there was no doubt about the identity of the bank involved in the alleged embezzlement. Such an amendment falls within the exception to the rule set forth in Russell v. United States for non-substantive changes. No, the Miranda warnings were sufficient, and Frances Stith's waiver was valid. The FBI agent testified, and the trial court found, that Miss Stith read the waiver form and signed it, and the agent also read it to her. The printed form signed by Miss Stith met the requirements established by Miranda. Given her intelligence, evidenced by three years of college education, the trial court properly determined that she made an intelligent and knowing waiver of her right to counsel and her right to remain silent during the interrogation. The court thus affirmed the judgment of conviction.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the limited purpose of a preliminary hearing in federal criminal procedure, emphasizing that an indictment by a grand jury effectively replaces its probable cause function. It provides clarity on what constitutes a non-material amendment to an indictment, distinguishing between errors of form that can be corrected and substantive changes requiring grand jury review. Furthermore, the decision affirms that a valid Miranda waiver can be established through a signed, read form, particularly when the defendant is intelligent and educated, demonstrating the courts' reliance on the totality of circumstances for waiver validity.
