Excerpts from U.S. v. Pignatiello,

582 F.Supp. 251 (USDC/DCO 1984)

 

There is sound policy support for requiring the oath of office. It solemnizes the appointment and sensitizes the appointed person to the obligations and limitations of the office. Additionally, it formalizes the appointment and works an official notification that the appointed person represents the government of the United States in its prosecuting authority and binds that branch of government to the acts of the appointed individual. In terms familiar to the law of agency, the oath is evidence of actual authority of the attorney as agent and thereby avoids disputes which could be generated by reliance upon some apparent authority.

 

...

 

The requirements of Rules 6(d) and 54, together with 544 of Title 28 are clear and unequivocal. The consequence of a violation of those requirements should also be clear and unequivocal and that means dismissal of the indictment.

 

...

 

[T]he only effective sanction for a violation of Rule 6(d) is dismissal without any further inquiry into the effects of that violation.

 

...

 

ORDERED, that the indictment filed in this matter on October 19, 1983 is dismissed as to all of the defendants herein and their bonds are exonerated.

[emphasis added]