National Archives at Kansas City, Missouri

Displaying 61 - 72 of 789

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Plea in Bar, Plea in Abatement, and Motion to Quash the Indictment, et al.

Plea in bar to the indictment, plea in abatement of the indictment, and motion to quash the indictment, and to dismiss the prosecution, on behalf of defendant T. J. Pendergast in Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for Pendergast request the above actions be taken for seven reasons as outlined within.

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Plea in Bar of Defendant, T. J. Pendergast

Plea in bar of defendant, T. J. Pendergast for Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for Pendergast state that all alleged overt acts included in the indictment occurred more than three years before the return of the indictment. Thus, Pendergast requests "that prosecution under said indictment be barred and that he be, therefore, discharged."

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Plea in Abatement, Plea in Bar, and Motion to Dismiss

Plea in abatement, plea in bar, and motion to dismiss in Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for Pendergast request the above actions be taken for two reasons as outlined within.

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Order upon Plea of Not Guilty

Order upon plea of not guilty Criminal Case No. 14937: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, the court acknowledges Pendergast's oral plea of not guilty and orders that any :any demurrer to the indictment or motion to quash or other preliminary motion shall be filed" by September 6, 1640.

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Order Transferring Case

Order transferring case for Criminal Case No. 14937: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, Albert L. Reeves transfers Case No. 14912 to No. 14937 as both cases have the same defendants and allegations.

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Motion to Stay Proceedings

Motion to stay proceedings herein and to continue this case as to the defendant, T. J. Pendergast, for the purpose of permitting this defendant to apply for executive clemency in Criminal Case No. 14937: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for Pendergast request the court to delay the case so that the defendant can apply for a pardon on account of his previous penitentiary sentence and payment of fine.

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Motion to Stay Proceedings

Motion to stay proceedings herein and to continue this case as to the defendant, T. J. Pendergast, for the purpose of permitting this defendant to apply for executive clemency in Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for Pendergast request the court to delay the case so that the defendant can apply for a pardon on account of his previous penitentiary sentence and payment of fine.

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Motion to Quash Petit Jury Panel

Two separate motions of defendants T. J. Pendergast and R. E. O'Malley to quash petit jury panel for Criminal Case No. 14937: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In these documents, attorneys for the two defendants motion to reject the selected jury because of an order that excluded Jackson County residents from being selected. The defendant attorneys' seven reasons to quash said jury are included within.

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Motion to Quash Petit Jury Panel

Motion of defendant R. E. O'Malley to quash petit jury panel for Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for O'Malley motion to reject the selected jury because of an order that excluded Jackson County residents from being selected. The defendant attorneys' seven reasons to quash said jury are included within.

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Motion to Quash Petit Jury Panel

Motion of defendant T. J. Pendergast to quash petit jury panel for Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for Pendergast motion to reject the selected jury because of an order that excluded Jackson County residents from being selected. The defendant attorneys' seven reasons to quash said jury are included within.

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Motion of A. L. McCormack to Quash Indictment

Motion of A. L. McCormack to quash indictment in Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, McCormack's attorney requests to void the indictment because the alleged acts took place three years before the indictment was returned, thus passing the statue of limitations.

U.S. vs. T. J. Pendergast, R. E. O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack: Memorandum Upon Pleas in Abatement

Memorandum for the Honorable A. Lee Wyman, United States Judge, upon pleas in abatement interposed by the above-named defendants in Criminal Case No. 14937: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, Acting United States Attorney Richard K. Phelps summarizes the pleas of the defendants and then discusses the legality of said pleas.