*1 banc, requires us court in cided this PORTER, Appellant, Eugene hold denied. We find no error trial was not affecting substantial America, UNITED STATES Appellee. Affirmed. No. 14980. Appeals Judge Court of BAZELON, (dissent- States Circuit of Columbia Circuit. District ing). 12, 1959.
Argued June From the date of his arrest on No 3, 1959. Sept. charg Decided vember until his trial on rape May 20, 1958, appellant es of Rehearing En Bane for Denied Petition deprived of his If was freedom. he had Sept. 1959. bond,1 price he would had the during his freedom that six period. he would have during ensuing pending 15 months Washington, Silard, Mr. John D. C. appeal questions this since it involves (appointed by court), this for plainly not which are frivolous. See Harry Alexander, Mr. T. Asst. U. S. Ward v. United Gaseh, Atty., 1063,1 Oliver whom Messrs. L.Ed.2d 25. Atty., Belcher, and Carl W. Asst. U. S. Appellant was indicted December Atty., brief, ap- were on the U. S. 23, 1957. At his on De- pellee. pleaded guilty, cember coun- Before appointed him, Edgerton, Miller, to defend sel and Wilbur K. Judges. Circuit February 18, Bazelon, was set 1958. The rec- ords of the District Court show that trial PER CURIAM. postponed (on set dates were each States, subsequent date) In our next date to the fol- lows: Postponement Date Set Reason for February 18, 1958 1. counsel “called in that he was snow- Defense
bound.” request 2. March “Gov. wit. —Gov. ill— wit.” engaged 3. March “Criminal courts in trial & this case not reached.” April Prosecutor in trial.” “is Govt, May 1, request “at went on —doctor checking see scheduled for trial.” Trial held. May 5, 1958, appellant process On had written had “been denied due of law.” (filed 14) May a letter to the Chief This letter an included account of the Court, complaining proceedings of the which differed from the Dis $3,000.00. 1. Bond was sot the amount of $5.00 tiine was for each $100.00 $150.-— charged $3,000.00 The schedule of rates 00 for bond.
454
respects,
appear
which
in the
in
in several
record entries
the
trict Court records
stating
significantly
in
that he had
Court. But
in the circum
most
even
January
by
entries,
stances
on
revealed
the
to court for trial
record
been called
21, 1958,
complaining
think
but that the
wit
the Government had an affirmative
stating
duty
protect
appeared
appellant’s
to
in
not
to a
ness had
speedy trial,
discharge.
had like
which
the
witness
it failed to
that
According
appeared
four other such
to those
the
not
on
oc
entries
first con
wise
alleged— tinuance,
February
addition, appellant
from
18
In
to March
casions.
(a period
appears
days),
11
of 21
no
when called
was occasioned
denial
—that
[sic], 1958,
the
20
fact that
to court for trial on March
counsel was
court-appointed]
day February
snowbound for one
“asked
law
[his
had
—
acquittal,
yer
The
motion for direct
snowstorm was
but the
to file a
a
unavoidable
21-day delay resulting
speedy
motion for a
trial” but that
from the District
or a
system4 might
lawyer
Court’s
if I
calendar
“told me that
wanted
have
the
filed,
ap
file been avoided if
that would have to
the Government or
motions
2
by stating,
pellant’s
myself.”
special
counsel
concluded
had
them
He
moved
a
setting.
already
serve as motion. Let
Since
“If this letter can
a
jail
awaiting
been in
for three months
served.”
it be
trial,
Government,
it
to me
seems
that the
petition
Appellant’s
to
failure
court
counsel,
duty
no less than defense
had a
date cannot
for relief at an earlier
be
to
call
case to the attention of the
Amend
a waiver
Sixth
considered
accelerating
court
of
Here, as in
ment
trial,
possible.5
duty
if at all
This
be
States,
greater
passed.
came
as more time
Nev
time, during
“There was no
ertheless,
April 24,
long delay, when the trial
spent
jail,
months in
there was
five
could he
set on schedule. How
ground
delay
a further
on the
that the
speedy
a
trial when
demanded
prosecutor was
in another trial.
constantly promised one? The
the case could not be tried
for his trial was never as
date set
gone
because a Government witness had
as month off. The defect
much
a
appear
on vacation.
It does not
whether
not that
the court failed to
was
grant
he had been advised of the trial
date
speedy
date,
appellant a
trial
sought
whether he had
to be excused.
granted
many
him too
but that
keep
speedy
dates and failed to
The Government cannot
sole re-
them.”
integrity
sponsibility for the
of the ad-
justice
ministration of criminal
and the
Appellant’s account of the reasons for
protection of constitutional
to the
differs from those
the continuances
postponed
were
all
criminal cases
auto-
to me that
in the face
It seems clear
day
matically
allegations
record, appel
carried over to the next
in the
of these
calendar,
open
might
brought
on the
which
been
be
lant should not have
to
away.
informally
inquiry concerning
are
We
ad-
trial without an
allegations
these
system
changed
propriety
allowing
vised that
has been
and the
of
require
postponed jail
repre
to
tomatically
cases au-
counsel to continue to
the same
day
be carried over from
sent
See Brown v. United
day
U.S.App.D.C. 77,
until reached and that
cases
F.
(concurring
363,
reasonable effort be made
to minimize
2d
period
postponement.
1959,
Burger),
While com-
certiorari denied
360 U.S.
change
mendable, this
does
S.Ct.