## Facts

- A federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned an eighty-count indictment against John P. Calise and Westchester Blood Service, Inc.
- The indictment charged multiple substantive violations of the Public Health Service Act involving blood-related biological products (including allegations of false labeling or marking), along with additional counts under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and a conspiracy count.
- Calise was named as a defendant in each count, but he moved to dismiss the indictment as to himself, arguing that the alleged wrongdoing was committed only by the corporation and that no unlawful conduct was attributed to him personally.
- Calise also argued that he could not be prosecuted under the Public Health Service Act because the acts complained of took place entirely within the State of New York.
- Both defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the indictment was vague and failed to provide constitutionally adequate notice of the charges.
- Defendants specifically attacked Counts 59–75 as vague because each count listed a “blood number” without stating whether it was the number that purported to identify the pint of blood or the number that actually identified it.
- Before the court ruled, the government voluntarily provided a bill of particulars stating that the blood numbers listed in Counts 59–75 were the numbers used by the defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether the Public Health Service Act charges should be dismissed because the alleged conduct occurred wholly within New York (i.e., was not a proper basis for federal prosecution as charged).
2. Whether the indictment failed to state an offense against Calise individually because it allegedly described only corporate acts by Westchester Blood Service, Inc.
3. Whether Counts 59–75 were impermissibly vague due to ambiguity concerning the “blood number” referenced in each count.
4. Whether the indictment as a whole was so vague, ambiguous, or indefinite that it failed to apprise defendants of the offenses charged.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss the Public Health Service Act charges based on the claim that the conduct occurred entirely within New York.
- The court denied Calise’s motion to dismiss the indictment as to him individually.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss Counts 59–75 for vagueness.
- The court denied the broader motion to dismiss the indictment as constitutionally insufficient.

## Legal Principles

- An indictment is generally sufficient if it sets out the elements of the offense and substantially follows the statutory language in a manner that fairly informs the defendant of the charge and permits a later plea of double jeopardy.
- Pretrial dismissal is not the vehicle to test the government’s trial proof; where a jurisdictional or statutory element is alleged in the indictment, disputes about whether the evidence will establish that element are ordinarily resolved at trial.
- An individual may be charged as a principal based on conduct carried out through a corporation; corporate form does not bar individual criminal responsibility where the indictment charges the individual in the statutory terms and the proof may show personal participation, causation, or aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2).
- The government need not plead evidentiary detail in the indictment; identifying or technical specifics (such as product identifiers or lot numbers) may be clarified through a bill of particulars when appropriate.
- A vagueness challenge fails where the indictment, read with any proper particulars supplied, provides fair notice of what is charged and is definite enough to prevent surprise and allow preparation for trial.

## Conclusion

United States v. Calise upheld an eighty-count indictment arising from alleged false labeling or marking of blood-related biological products, rejecting dismissal arguments that the Public Health Service Act could not apply because the acts occurred within New York, that Calise could not be charged for conduct carried out through the corporate defendant, and that the indictment (including counts identified by “blood numbers”) was too vague—especially after the government clarified the identifying numbers through a bill of particulars.


United States v. Calise, 217 F. Supp. 705 (1962)