STATEMENT OF FACTS AND NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS The defendant, Thomas L. Little, has been charged with violating Title 13, United States Code, Section 221(a) by an information dated June 19, 1970 and signed by F. L. Peter Stone, United States Attorney for the District of Delaware. On June 19, 1970, the defendant voluntarily appeared before the Honorable Edward J. Pollard, United States Commissioner and was released on his own recognizance. On July 2, 1970, the defendant was arraigned before the Honorable Caleb Layton, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty. On July 13, 1970, defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the information and a Motion for a Bill of Particulars. On July 30, 1970, the United States filed an answer to the Defendant's Motion for a Bill of Particulars. This brief is offered in support of the defendant's Motion to Dismiss the information. ARGUMENT II THE INFORMATION FAILS TO ADEQUATELY The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; . The Supreme Court has, in a number of cases, emphasized the protections which informations and indictments are intended to guarantee. Two criteria have been advanced by which the sufficiency of the information or indictment is to be measured. The criteria are, first, whether the information or indictment "... contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged, and sufficiently appraises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet;" and secondly, "... in case any other proceedings are taken against him for a similar offense whether the record shows with accuracy to what extent he may plead a formal acquittal or conviction." Cochran and Sayre v. United States, 157 U.S. 286, 15 S. Ct. 628, 39 L. Ed. 704; Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29, 16 S. Ct. 434, 40 L. Ed. 606, Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 431, 52 S. Ct. 417, 419, 76 L. Ed. 861. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 558, 23 L. Ed. 588 the court said: More recently in Russell v. United States (1962) 369 U.S. 749, 82 S. Ct. 1038, the Supreme Court held that certain indictments charging the defendant's refusal to answer certain questions when summoned before a congressional subcommittee were insufficient where they did not identify the subject under inquiry at the time of the defendant's alleged default or refusal to answer. In that case Mr. Justice Steward delivered the opinion of the court which said, inter alia: "...the very core of criminality under 2 U.S. C. $192, 2 U.S. C. A. $192 is pertinency In the case at bar, it is crucial to know the specific questions which the defendant is alleged to have "refused and wilfully neglected to answer" in order to determine whether they are "applicable to the (defendant] and his family" as required by Title 13, United States Code, Section 221(a). It is also crucial to know the pertinence of such questions to the purpose of the census. In view of the fact that neither the specific questions nor their pertinence have been alleged, the information fails to state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the United States. ARGUMENT II THE INFORMATION FAILS TO ADEQUATELY The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; ... The Supreme Court has, in a number of cases, emphasized the protections which informations and indictments are intended to guarantee. Two criteria have been advanced by which the sufficiency of the information or indictment is to be measured. The criteria are, first, whether the information or indictment "...contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged, and sufficiently appraises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet;" and secondly, "... in case any other proceedings are taken against him for a similar offense whether the record shows with accuracy to what extent he may plead a formal acquittal or conviction." Cochran and Sayre v. United States, 157 U.S. 286, 15 S. Ct. 628, 39 L. Ed. 704; Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29, 16 S. Ct. 434, 40 L. Ed. 606, Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 431, 52 S. Ct. 417, 419, 76 L. Ed. 861. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 558, 23 L. Ed. 588 the court said: "It is an elementary principle of criminal pleading that where the definition of Furthermore, in United States v. Simmons, 96 U. S. 360 at page 362, 24 L. Ed. 819, it was said that an indictment which was not drafted to inform the defendant "with reasonable certainty, of the nature of the accusation against him is defective although it may follow the language of the statute." ... And in United States v. Iless, 124 U.S. 483, 487, 8 S. Ct. Russell v. United States (1962) 369 U.S. 768, 82 S. Ct. 1038 is a case which is closely parallel to the case at bar. In Russell, a series of defendants were indicted for refusing to answer questions posed by a congressional subcommittee. The defendants were charged with violating 2 U.S. C. $192, 2 U.S. C. A. $192, a statute which is quite similar to the statute under which the present defendant is charged. The former statute reads as follows: |