Ralph Santana v. United States
385 U.S. 848
SCOTUS
1966
Check Treatment

*1 848 A. States. v. United 306. Santana peti- Krieger J. Albert 2d Cir. States. United for the Marshall General Solicitor

tioners. Mr. Justice cer- application these grant years’ 15 4 to from sentenced They

tiorari. alleged these under penitentiary in the imprisonment between negotiations of months After circumstances. agreed he Attorney, States the United and petitioners if sentences minimum certain to recommend guilty, pleaded agreed, Petitioners guilty. plead would mini- the Attorney recommended States United the and peti- first the when But promised. as sentences mum judge, different sentencing before appeared tioner recom- of in excess a sentence imposed judge petitioner That Attorney. States the by United mended plea, guilty withdraw to sought immediately then handwriting on the seeing apparently others, the and or pleas withdraw to moved immediately wall, the deny judge the only did Not sentencing. adjourn remaining the sentence proceed motions these even refused he petitioners, according to but, petitioners, thereon. argument hear motions to entertain But their appeal. of timely notices filed then Court records trial to file failed counsel of such giving days 40 within Appeals Some Proc. Rule Crim. by Fed. required as moved expired, had after counsel though appeals, days and within docket promised then dismissed within file briefs spite done was This prosecution. want to counsel’s was due delay explanation counsel’s post- type what determine quickly more inability assurance, counsel’s pursue remedy to conviction allegation of the above facts, that there were substantial *2 legal questions involved.

Regardless of the truthfulness of their allegations, peti tioners were any denied opportunity to substantiate them because their appeals were dismissed before their lawyers could file their appeal papers. Thus this is case added tq a growing list of cases in which the Federal Rules have been utilized deprive litigant of his day in court simply because lawyer has failed to file some paper within the specified time by the Rules. g., e. See, Concrete Co. Beaufort v. Atlantic States Co., Constr. 352 F. 2d 460, cert. denied, 384 U. S. 1004 (dissenting opinion of Black, J.); Lord v. Helmandollar, 121 U. S. App. D. C. 168, 348 F. 2d 780, cert. denied, 383 U. S. J., dissenting; Riess v. Murchison, cert. denied, Black, 383 U. S. 946, Black, J., dissenting; Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U. S. 626, 636, J., joined by The Chief Justice,

I have always thought that where a litigant’s money or property is at stake in a civil case, “The pur- basic pose of the Federal Rules is to administer through fair trials, not through summary dismissals as necessary as they may be on occasion.” Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 383 U. S. 363, 373. I have no doubt is true in a criminal case where a litigant’s liberty is in issue. The Criminal Rules “are not, and were not in- tended to be, a rigid code to have an inflexible meaning irrespective of the circumstances. Rule 2 begins with the admonition that ‘[t]hese rules are intended pro- vide for the just determination of every criminal pro- ceeding. They shall be construed to sécure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the elimina- ” tion of unjustifiable expense and delay.’ Fallen v. United States, 378 U. S. 139, 142. There is no provision in the Rules making dismissal of an appeal mandatory for failure to file the record within the time prescribed jurisdic- acquired The by Rule filing upon tion any time “at empowered expressly (b) Rule a record filing permit discretion” its in excusable result “was it on file if the failure neglect.” unexcusable obvious, an has there think I Here judges in reposed discretion exercise

failure deter- just “the Rules administer may proceeding.” every mination because not many years, prison languish through no because, merit, but without lawyers were part, *3 on fault apparent Since papers. file their seeking to pending on bail released never prejudiced be could how see I fail public’s with delay or how—consistent short administration fair —it ap- assuring any interest could merits. on the than of other disposed peals be to the Court cases remand reverse allegations. merits on decision v. No. Local Union No. 320. Power Co. Illinois Workers, of Electrical Brotherhood International judg- to vacate Motion Cir. A. 7th C. AFL-CIO. as moot denied. complaint ment Stuart Friedlich A. Herbert denied. Ríes Schuchat Stanley petitioner. Bernstein respondent. 9th C. A. 20, Misc. Muza v. California Thomas pro se. Petitioner

Cir. Certiorari Harris, Albert W. California, Attorney General Lynch, Granucci, R. Robert General, Jr., Attorney Assistant respondents. General, Attorney Deputy