*1 317 danger is, itself, “fraught of in with ORDER "* * 15 injustice excesses and PER CURIAM. principles make courts Familiar should appellant’s On consideration of motion deny pending appeal on reluctant to bail lodged supplemental for leave to file his petition endanger ground the would that release rehearing banc, for en it is community. sup- must the And denial be by ORDERED the Court en banc that by ap- ported scrupulous inquiry a into appellant’s granted, motion be aforesaid pellant’s past history and other all rele- appel- and the Clerk is directed to file inquiry vant circumstances. No such lodged supplemental petition lant’s for by is revealed the record here. I would rehearing banc, en and not, however, remand the case for fur- On consideration whereof: inquiry appeal ther at this since the time by IT FURTHER IS ORDERED the very shortly is scheduled to be heard banc, being major- en Court there not a affecting and the circumstances the issue ity Judges of the of this circuit in favor may of bail be mooted or altered. granting appellant’s supplemental peti- of rehearing banc, appel-
tion for en that supplemental petition lant’s said is de- nied. BAZELON, Judge, FAHY,
.
Chief
and
WRIGHT,
WASHINGTON and
Circuit
Judges,
grant rehearing
would
en banc.
Judge
BAZELON,
(dissenting).
Chief
petition
This is a
for leave to
out
file
PROCTOR,
Francis T.
Appellant,
supplemental
of
petition
time a
re-
for
v.
hearing
compli-
en banc.
matter
The
is
UNITED
America,
STATES of
by
petitioner
ap-
cated
plied
the fact that
has
Appellee.
Supreme
for
in
certiorari
the
Court.
No. 18187.
petition alleges
The instant
that
the
Appeals
United States Court of
appellant’s
issue whether
confession was
District of Columbia Circuit.
voluntary
improperly
was
submitted to
3,
Feb.
1965.
jury.
claim,
the
This
it is further al
leged
argued
appeal
was not
on
because
supported by then-existing
it was not
prior opinion
law,
argued
For
see 338
and was not
in
F.2d 533.
the earlier
petition
rehearing
for
en banc because
Layne
by
(appointed
Mr. A. Alvis
this
counsel was not then aware of the Su
court), Washington,
C„,
appellant.
D.
for
preme Court decisions in Jackson Den
v.
no,
368,
1774,
378 U.S.
84
12
S.Ct.
L.Ed.
Epstein,
Atty.,
David
Mr.
Asst. U. S.
(1964);
2d 1028
and
v. Unit
Muschette
Acheson,
with whom Messrs. David C.
States,
569,
1927,
ed
378 U.S.
84
12
S.Ct.
Atty.,
Q.
U. S.
Frank
Nebéker and Har-
(1964).
L.Ed.2d 1039
Petitioner’s claim
Titus, Jr.,
Attys.,
old H.
Asst. U. S.
were
appears
to have substantial merit.1
brief,
appellee.
on the
for
Moreover,
pendency
I consider that the
Judge,
Before
Chief
application
and
of the
for certiorari does not
Bazelon,
jurisdiction.
us of
divest
I therefore
Fahy, Washington,
Danaher,
Bastían,
grant
and
petition
Circuit
to
vote
leave to file this
Burger,
McGowan,
Wright,
Judges,
grant
in
rehearing
Chambers.
and to
en banc.
States,
15.
States,
Williamson v. United
184 F.
1. See Remmer v. United
348 U.S.
280,
(2d
1950)
(Mr.
904,
288,
(1955);
2d
282
Cir.
Justice
75 S.Ct.