Riggs v. United States

Supp. constitutional, 1. (Circuit Criminal SAME v. Probation 1925, §§ of RIGGS president. Court law WORKMAN, Act Nos. 10564%-10564%c) as in conflict <§=>978. June of UNITED March Appeals, 2470, 8, 1926.) 2471. 4, S.U. STATES.* Fourth n BIGGS held not Marshal. (Comp. pardoning Circuit. ^[14] UNITED STATES St. F.( 2d) for ington, for defendant Atty., of cuit Atty. Gen., and Judge. A. Before WADDILL Elliott ^[5] plaintiff in error Judges, M. W. Va. Charleston, Northcott, Belcher, in error and B. J. (William of McDOWELL, Va.,W. U. S. and Pettigrew, and Charleston, W. and J. appellant. appellee. Atty., of PARKER, Donovan, Asst. on the Asst. U. S. District brief), Hunt Va., Cir- 5 Intoxicating liquors <§=13. 2. two WADDILL, Judge. These Circuit 18, on held to confer S. Amend. Const. U. cases, named criminal first two possession Congress cating of intoxi- to make prosecutions by consent, and the consolidated beverage purposes liquors a criminal second a out corpus growing writ of habeas by Prohibition done National as was Supp. (Comp. Ann. Act, 2, St. 33 10138%m, §§ tit. question of the of the eases, said involve the 10138y2t). 10138y2aa, 1923, §§ validity imposed upon of the sentence plaintiff (in ease No. error criminal <§=1001. law 3. Criminal District who was defendant held acted within its Court District power under Probation Act discretion and as will be referred to hereinafter Court, and Supp. 4, (Comp. 1925, §§ March St. together, The cases were heard defendant. setting 10564%-105&4%c), order of aside other, of their relation each entering at term subse- sentence disposed will be considered quent guilty re- that at was period probation fixed. single opinion. ceived and In criminal case the feloniously defendant hav- was indicted <§=1001. law Criminal ing day possession on the- Judges in District latitude allowed Much March, 1926, liquor intended 4, March Probation Act enforcement of Supp. 10564%-10564%e). (Comp. 1925, for beverage purposes, of section St. violation §§ National 3, title Prohibition Act <§=1058. 5. Criminal law 10138%aa). Supp. 1923, (Comp. St. Ann. exception was taken to action "Where no pre- further The said indictment recited the impos- revoking trial court although present, sentence, vious convictions defendant two defendant unnecessary to determine defend- whether character, wit, offenses same on hearing ant on entitled to day December, 4th on 18th breach of terms of day December, defendant was <§=1001. 6. Criminal law unlawfully also indicted for and felonious- Probation March Under ly carrying on business of a retail Supp. 1925, 10564%-10564%c), St. trict §§ Dis- having paid special dealer without tax imposition suspend as Court had required therefor law. well as execution of sentence. The record recites 25th of that on the corpus <§=4. 7. Habeas April, 1925, thereto, agreeing the defendant corpus ap- Habeas be availed indictments, respective- numbered, the two peal case, to, in criminal nor resorted add amplify way ly, were to be consol- record ordered presented case, and therein. thereupon idated, day said and that (cid:127) indictments, pleaded said Error Appeal to and from the Dis- that, appearing “it satisfaction trict the United States for the justice the ends of court that Southern District Virginia, of West public, best interest of the as well as that Charleston; George McClintic, Judge. W. defendant, will of the said be subserved Cat) suspension (Bear Riggs imposition L. J. was convicted of or execu- having possession intoxicating liquor sentence, by placing the defend- carrying liq- upon probation, on the ant it is consid- business a retail therefore (Bear uor that the paying special dealer without ered said L. J. tax required Cat) Riggs brings placed he error. Pe- Riggs years.” period tition L. J. for a four writ of habeas also shows at a later corpus, Siegel record Workman, directed to day, wit, term of court, at another United States Marshal for the Southern Dis- November, Virginia. day trict 21st of West Erom follows: an order de- again day States, “This nying writ, petitioner came the United appeals. Affirmed attorney, its United States well also both eases. * Certiorari denied 47 110, 71 L. Ed. —. REPORTER, 14 FEDERAL 2d SERIES

.6 (Bear Cat) Riggs, defendant, the L. should have set charged judgment J. aside its dis- prisoner proper person, whereupon custody, his own the the from as asked for appear by petition United in his corpus. States made it evidence for habeas satisfactory Riggs passing upon the assignments, the court that said these considera- given violated terms and of his will first be the conditions to the constitutional probation questions imposed duly upon him raised. April, court on the day 1925, upon 25th of First. It is earnestly insisted that the entering the defendant in- pleas guilty of Probation Act of 4th March, 1925, of dictments 288, pending against unconstitutional, 266 and Nos. because the same encroach- upon him es court, charging him, pardoning the said of the Presi- (Bear Cat) L. J. dent. Riggs, awith third viola- Sections and 5 of the Probation tion of the Act, pp. National Prohibition [Comp.- Stat. c. having St. Supp. 1925, with on carried the business of a re- 10564%, 10564%aj) §§ tail having paid dealer without follows: special tax as provided by “Be it eases enacted the Senate and House Representatives were of consolidated on the date aforesaid. of the United States proceeded Congress thereupon pro- “The America assembled, court judgment courts upon pleas guilty, having nounce said United original States jurisdiction and here now the term of his of criminal except fixes sentence actions, years. Columbia, District of ap- confinement at four Therefore it when it shall pear to is considered L. the court that the said J. satisfaction of the court that the justice ends (Bear Cat) Riggs impris- and the be confined and best.interests of the public, as oned in the well as the penitentiary defendant, United States will be sub- period thereby, for the of four shall Atlanta, Georgia, power, served after con- of Amer- viction or after a and that the United States or nolo years, any said defendant contendere for crime or pun- recover no costs from offense not ica by death or expend- imprisonment, in this behalf ishable suspend life prosecution her about imposition (Bear Cat) Riggs or L. J. execution of ed, and the said sen- place tence upon pro- and to custody marshal defendant remanded period upon bation for such such terms this court.” they and conditions as may best; deem or assignments of well error, also, pro- may impose may corpus habeas court fine and ease as in the legality place challenges probation of the Dis- the defendant ceeding, %the recited, par- may manner aforesaid. The revoke or as above court Court’s action trict any may or modify condition ticularly: jurisdiction Its to'set change probation: Provided, period November, aside, on the 21st period probation, together with April, 25th probation order of the thereof, previous court, extension shall not exceed five at a term the years. judgment sentencing in lieu thereof enter may . “While on penitentiary, the defendant as shown aforesaid; required pay one or several sums November of the 21st order its a fine imposed being placed at the time alleging pos- unlawful the indictments may required also to make liquor charged no of- session aggrieved States, reparation to of the United restitution or against laws fense damages or loss parties for actual party without or Congress was conviction by the offense Amendment to the Con- caused Eighteenth der the jnay required to had, in- also be possession of mere to make the and. stitution per- any person support and vide toxicating liquors a criminal legally respon- support he is seeking to do was unconstitu- sons for whose so the act Act of void; the Probation sible. tional That when directed Supp. 1925, St. “See. §§ 4, 1925. March report court, probation officer shall 10564%-10564%e), is unconstitutional a statement of the conduct with the in conflict Con- because it is void, while States, especially of the United stitution thereupon discharge proba- may court upon, and in de- effect it encroaches supervision ter- tioner from further of, the exer- the President prives against proceedings him, minate the cases; in criminal clemency executive cise as shall seem probation', advisable. extend the wholly jurisdic- without court was probation period within any time “At ease, in the to enter record tion, proba officer arrest the defendant, judgment variations by probation judicial position enable as the ture concerned, 1917E, lation to under consideration enlarged suspend sentence ment.” known crime, and the pendency, legal proceedings having any time sidering the pardon, S. law had never is as"full same tunate, in ly establish. tutional ly riod 10564%e) provide those issue warrant a warrant and cause the rested and upon been before the court. bation immediately.” er of the as (18 ercise tioner ^[1] 27, 37 S. Ct. have been of a “ * That “* “Sec. Sections 3 Chief suspension L. Ed. authority. The convictions, sentence which imposed. way encroaches serving of executive courts legislative act without period, 1178, regard to * * t. * Ex said: discretion highly right of the position taken after its 5. That Executive, enable officers and define their brought 366). penalties Chief parte receive legislation Ann. authority of the no sentenced, wise It been their And, but within complete after course to be may remedial and 4 meet, is, 72, * * * way said: behalf was warrant, mind extends to At Garland, sentence, Executive, in shall forthwith commission, Cas. defendant Supreme Court, before the court. clemency, and that enacted. much discretion, probationary a liberal so far as revoke the 'his any.time contravenes interests conviction taken, or upon the courts President, L. Ed. may 1917B, may or such other act shall is causing fixed the court (sections necessity for as it a conviction arrest. character, and the wise presented the exercise later case the maximum clearly 4 Wall. authorities if appointment pursued in originally devise, be exercised might interpretation, every 129, after the the future is either 355), EIGGS v. UNITED President adequate during authority of able enacted. may impose indefinitely in the the consti take effect sideration have been Thereupon legislation untenable, may 10564%b, sentences, functions be taken to L. R. 333, to them Walker & original subject, infinite to be used in con having offense means before unfor There be ar of an legis judg clear their pow issue 14P.(2d) pro may- im- fu pe ex A. U. at ceive It liquors, was the Ed. ture, lidity for the lack Act, seeking that hence the charges beverage purposes. an offense to have S. session gress, by appropriate legislation, ample power eration, ties 802, 808, 809,1 very ion cuit Court of cuit erence is made under the act we have to 590, 594), as is also to a review found to contain no manner to encroach power of could requisite guage, preme Court, cuit is, L. R. ^[2] gress, complete.” Ex S. at (7 350, 356, 357, pass' F.[2d] March A Since the pardoning power act judgment, Second. Likewise the authorities cited therein Court sale, such construing why, (Kriebel U. STATES not A. page 52, 37 Richardson v. of the constitutional amendment more (National pointed of the law fully President organic or the unlawful no offense under the law. The intent and acts of the intoxicating liquors has been 1017E, 1178, interesting well and it -under the indictment 4, authority subject 590), holding of constitutional to create specific sustained, legislative Sons, 259 1925, transportation was not passage Appeals President. Appeals recourse must be beverage nature of provisions law to parte to afford the relief needed. furnished. plain Prohibition an (Nix Prentis, Congress approved 40 S. applicable S. Ct. unlawfully purpose S., Probation Act. Eighteenth character under consid Commonwealth, able and It was not ruling review of the authori recent of the executive. Ann. such reviewed United of the Probation we are unable to conferred 10 forbid the v. and the U. S. questions under upon Ct. purposes. decision of the Cir- they possession constitutionality 78, consider, F.[2d] things, will be earnestly This ease will be James, the Seventh of the Yolstead as unequivocal case, Cas. 486, 588, doubted on this Indeed, here. Cases, 61 authority, States, 242 U. comprehensive possessing on the afforded, dp intended for Ninth the accused thus amend same held in Amendment, had to L. Ed. 1917B, special in an to make it not invade one’s adequately 762), pardoning manufac found 7 Supreme and to it Congress . are void the Cir- It arose Grogan 131 Va. insisted thereof the Su- subject subject Circuit F.[2d] 64 L. opin Con pos like- Con per Cir- 129, lan- ref- va U. it 1 109 S. E. REPORTER, FEDERAL 2d SERIES 1116). 10138%m), Supp. 1923, 836, 22 A. L. R. St. Ann. § 66 L. Ed. respecting declares precise that: It be that the words possession liquor possess used “It shall be unlawful to have or are not * ** infre- any liquor it not amendment, and intended use constitutional * * * ” enacting violating that sueh quently happens in laws title.' consti- case; purpose Section title of the same is the but the act generally (Comp. Supp. 1923, 10138%t), to cover St. Ann. tutional amendment was consideration, and subject provides as follows: Congress undoubtedly February 1, 1920, possession “After vested judg- good liquors by say reasonably, any person legally permit- and in its what necessary to ment, possess liquor ted prima should and should not be under this title to shall be Congress clothed with facie kept enforce the same. evidence that such along general power, purpose bartered, the several for the sold, with ex- by appro- changed, given amendment states, away, furnished, to enforce the or otherwise legislation; say, pass disposed priate is to of in provisions violation of the subject under regulation laws for the title.” punishment for provide Co., and to Deposit consideration Lincoln In Street v. Safe regulations. the violation of sueh laws and 88, 31, 254 41 S. Ct. 65 L. Ed. 94, U. S. 358, page 2 at Fisher, Cranch, Clarke, In U. S. v. 151, 1548, 10 L. R. Mr. Justice A. (2 304), 396 L. said: Ed. speaking Supreme Court, emphasized for the “Congress possess the choice of must presumption arising from the fact that the means, empowered and must be to use liquor warehouse, presence then means are fact conducive to the ex- which being considered, explained, and could be granted by ercise the constitu- explained can that it was there. But that tion.” here, in not avail the defendant where the Maryland, 4 In McCulloeh v. Wheat. possession of charges the unlawful dictment (4 579), 316-421 Mar- beverage purposes, L. Ed. Chief Justice liquor to be used for shall said: entered, and to which “Sound Constitution construction in two other made of similar offenses proof Legislature must allow to the national Other deci by same defendant. cases discretion, strongly support to the means with will be found sions powers Campbell, it confers are to be car- expressed. which herein Crane v. views 304; 98, will enable that execution, 305, ried into 38 62 L. Ed. 245 S. S. Ct. U. high assigned to body perform Kentucky Distilleries, etc., duties 251 Hamilton v. peo- 194; Rup beneficial to the it, 106, in the manner most L. Ed. 40 S. Ct. 64 146, U. S. legitimate, 141, let it be ple. 264, Let the end be with- 40 Ct. pert Caffey, 251 U. S. S. v. scope Constitution, and all Palmer, 253 260; 64 L. Rhode Island v. Ed. appropriate, 946; 588, which are L. Ed. 350, 486, means which 40 64 U. S. S. Ct. 545, adapted end, to that which are not plainly Day, 265 U. S. Everard’s Breweries v. 1174; 628, but consist the letter and prohibited, 44 L. Ed. 560, S. Ct. spirit Constitution, Circuit) are constitution- 299 F. (C. 4th Riggs C. A. S. U. v. A.) 281 F. 293. (C. al.” 273; Massey U. S. C. 28, 85, Distilleries, 41 1919, Kentucky Volstead Act Oct. e. Hamilton v. Supp. 1923; Mr. 108), Stat. 305 St. Ann. Jus- (40 supra, page seq.), consideration, court, et under Brandéis, speaking for the tice ÍOL^/Í been held to Supreme Court, valid police be noting fact amply charged and the act covers offense Amend- by the Tenth to the States reserved 3, 2, Constitution, Section title of this indictment. said: ment to the provides: that, act when none the less true “But it is person pow- “No on or shall after the date States exerts the United Eighteenth Constitution, when Amendment to the Con- ers conferred goes stitution of the United the fact objection States into ef- can be based valid manufacture, sell, barter, transport, may im- attended fect, be sueh exercise n export, deliver, possess any furnish or the exercise which attend same incidents port, intoxicating liquor except may police power, or that it authorized of its a state act, provisions all accomplish purpose.” of this a similar act tend liberally Day, supra, at construed to Breweries v. shall the end that In Everard’s speak- beverage use of Ct. page S. Sanford, prevented.” through said: Justice ex- 25, under its Congress, Section title same “It clear that act

tions of his Judges great tion of adopt any lespie make that press power to enforce from thority hence the against its existence.” cedure under the Probation Act is ble abuse lation cating liquors for trolling in this ease. tion for tend to supra. course Pennsylvania. ling ter is not tion U. S. v. Beiner court cannot be adhered to that he was entitled to a that In the enforcement of this riod months and fording upon tence James ity must cuit), District Court eration of the Hilt v. U. sequently, after clearly and the the suspend action es with [3,4] recent decision Defendant cites in Fourth. The sentence penitentiary. the defendant’s District is, at which U. S. recent decisions of this court (4 years), be the and difficulty, latitude conferred well Third. This court the order of Walker, that followed, although acted follow (C. the court’s existed care, whether he had power, allowed support, original Walker, Sheriff, incoming S., ordinary eligible place prohibition taken. enforcing prohibition U. S. v. C. defendants the benefits imposition period for within Court’s action 279 F. 421 and so far as Dowling them, A.) did, question We days in under the Sheriff, to set to the District the defendant the full especially particular ease, plea period the contentions jurisdiction defendant further The beverage purposes, rules have examined these at a the Western District objection Judge brings its Berger, the same. F.(2d) 590, 592, et aside four appropriate the - effective. support applicable discretionary The (D. event to or execution of of the (C. trial term al. violated the condi- regarding term probation, probation appropriate not an act, plea Thompson, at traffic in intoxi- us to the consid probationary pe they support, or years; question F. C.) strictly. C. probation at (D. C.) complained of; another and in subsequent of 4 much latitude A. Fifth Cir Judges another RIGGS F. upon proba propriety the District er number F.(2d) 278 F. pursue Manifestly taking under the made, authority, argument guilty, means terms and received, not free been the years served thereof; (Strick and of pro- statute. author or con 275 F. Nix in possi- urges legis- many term, fixed, ques- v. UNITED STATES posi viewed term sub sen age, eas Gil the large au en af we of in F. to n to v. (2d) law reason of ministering state of imposition of sentence will doubtless be rare ly course tion of the right but feel cretion interpretation; country to be made it things had been make er reasonable restraints accused. The act should fortunate federal District manely titled to the offenses would the wise the defendant’s contention that he particular offenders, keeping always breach of the terms of his court. be, imposition time of and their affirmatively appears course, come before done in its due age, acted. discretions own ^{[6] [5]} having regard have been taken to availed act, amelioration of the condition of particular execution, Fifth. We It is not purpose whether their previous proper person, questionable things may numbers of t.end especially placed in should be dealing because of the uncertainly jn motives suspend appear by policy a hearing violated, affliction, consideration, government that sex, of, to throw revocation doing charged, them, the of the act was the conditions of the humane sentence was the act youth placed necessary conduct, affected offender. persons but save in cases with criminal classes and, light of the unreasonable and intent with which Courts be done the District to its act, administration, offense desirable and be done allowed, having regard some Congress, upon the persons throughout in view of infirmity, sex, evidence or behalf light imposition, upon the indeed, of record that sentence. We and things general purposes, and the he which would no accepted and embarrassments far-reaching their the than much that we susceptible arose It could not have suspension their exception appears on their free hand its not, infirmities the court had the character probation, place any great it was enacted. afflictions, Courts, question that should satisfactory possible probation anything action present action discretion, provisions making personal from ought not to rights of án enacting it, however, be humane, by government give looking pass upon probátion great behavior, tend in view well as the un- conten of this the in- of in age in hu- at of old in rath- their they that dis lib- ad thfe the en to it REPORTER, 2d 14 FEDERAL SERIES mitted tition granted, violated state and turn tioner me Probation ease ring). I sibility gress, to state the all cussed subject reason clusion reached siderable and federal er ditions ease tions should writ of habeas probationers pose raised appeal derstood, ord period probation, erty, and hence this condition will ly guilty. have the easily ished ^[7] the discretion of simplified, and in resorted federal revoke MeDOWELL, District From the enforcement Affirmed. affirmed in the has the time so the reasons probationer The action of the District presented any proceeding cannot (2471) sentence would arise. respecting for habeas definitely solved has never be done period in the criminal conviction, in the be said I was never been is the' reason The way period right given federal during difficulty, and which is probation novel, trial not well or the execution of the to, federal new marshal cause of criminal it concurring. could be held a once infringed. sentence been not able to concur record longer to the appears that one of the probation was a belief corpus case, therein. question foregoing which by prescribing judges, may (43 Stat. fixed, in the fixed for which one is to be that I stated, the constitutional offense, admitted that he had com- had, after probation observe prohibition laws. corpus.asserts, and the re- add to or some made in the criminal fixed, as to the Constitution of all criminal taken, was keeping admits, probably laws. with the my perplexity and tiie incoming in the habeas induced the trial majority than five case, intent can it judge, one or more of the which probationer in this 1259). that he known. At opinion. would be well un- availed of as an then because the nor can the same amplify Judge (concur- terms It also that the case, affirmed power shown be worth never the outset question suspension gave the same of interest opinion until also because years. has in probation- has never for which No. questions be This can sentence, not all state laws, to me con- a the appears imposed the rec by pos- thought As the no by the proba- corpus policy great- while court posi Con- case, pun- con- con- the ease dis-. pe- up- im- it granted violated condition to one class of conditions to decide whether necessity seems some all er charge erly breach of a condition of dition other of tion, not the foregoing the implied, is al and state criminal laws because of a breach of seems merely bation is ken.- plainly rivation less ease, implied restriction, revocation of statute plies I tion are nished to revoke waived trial exercised That which der a bation is er is that he has ment of teemed eases whole the am class. other Many overwhelming majority of Even if not probation courts an probationer power give binding be during put person unless . more The fact that may properly a condition of should be clear of breach because a contains privilege. prescribed, fact that two possible does necessary power 'execution, without expressly required conditions expressly given, each intended grant probation, In probation may does become require in the belief to determine .is never express writing, classes. Obedience as that enough respect and until by jury or some statute not seem to arbitrary a loss of certainly less probationer, restriction on the who is not has broken a condition. a always conditions given the assistance of a charge of condition had a grant It is perpetual. revoke when it discussion, mild conclusion. which is power grant power a not the result was and a to this second impliedly given be probation. of such stay, tribunal should have a conditions of proba- probation to such that the power of implied in objecting at least probation, it jury every possible surveillance, has been made-that ,& privilege. Too not condition of there has been a the truth of put not be revoked un- liberty, me of falls and the fact that probation copy is intended to be fall power certainly most expressed. fact, lawmakers probationer which in intended to exists, trial thereof. revoke and in instances, A a charges, and into court properly courts, Treating thereof fur- is statute does a importance. one even clearly at least in probation. probation- highly revocation That such the feder- thereto been bro- postpone- to revoke a statute that like the class, jury. in was statute proba- or and to which if prop- every many even That dep- pro- oth- give has im- the in- es- If it a to the has charged if not ing dicate some other probationer ed to the quite accordance with least should with the class, er to the clusion he thinks the truth of the be, bation statute. crime is be no ed in such that the bation statute Revoking probation does not excuse the new constituted sufficient other granted probation shall determine for itself voke the probationer so probation has the sional of such of the court which dence, Congress deeide in decide too However, If the the court tried that the statute not been tribunal so absolute words, every charge absolutely judge holding duplication granted probation can of course re- breaches can be such ill-supported, that the Probation Act eharge; court, might properly is the commission of a crime judge’s subsequent easily court which had gravity justified, that a crime has judge proper. tribunal, advance who does not charges independent has committed a be, where the breach which provided for to decide the regularly convicted, necessity Congress failure prosecuted reached. decision tribunal If the eharge. of condition usage. of the court which and in and it is necessary, person and if of effort sufficient judge holding or refuse to granted probation power impliedly gives power such verdict. granted probation. and there can therefore the court which of the statute eharge that the court which has regular which has justify prosecution After conviction or tribunal charge supported by If the previously confess, certainly possible regular jury to at least is useful been committed, reason for hold- and of given faet, in question not If in the second crime, decide is too RIGGS crime, of condition revoke gives power by course will correspond usually charge regularly the con- and who an jurisdic- expense. granted ignored as hav- respect he can denying trivial, that a is not grant- grant- to in- judge UNITED STATES if of by v. pow- it, 14F.(Sd) occa- by a trial pro.- evi- a In want of in ly prejudicial fore a prosecution. formed, expressed, ion that the wise a cent of a district crime prejudice tion, fendant that disqualify stituted criminal authorities. But at least bationer, guilt or finally tioner such faet affords no sufficient reason for to hold that charge ficult of solution, qualified danger occasionally istence of act court which charge, ed the caution federal advance of tried judicial such what If While the many judge new possibilities rather than reasons for refusal to granted probation state law. convicted or unless jury eharge innocence of trial, power, unless the charge cases it court a breach of crime which he who, federal exercising the state court. pówer, himself. A charge preside accused is either granted probation to refuse to power be an to the against the above-mentioned a state undertakes to determine in the criminal court. either has trial in the state court charged against is liable to be abused. But after trial for the state of crime the same revoke afford prosecution he has been it seems more possession by I power and acted result, of crime advance of the do at the unnecessary probationer probationer eharge is to me close and dif- propriety any not here refer to especially might prejudice strong granted probation, has been but to the probationer of the judge judicious committed by regular case. there is at eharge. denying or to the de- regularly reasons for satisfactory decision admits the Any grant who has longer power duly trial be- deciding his trial or. inno- granted. seeming .regular dangers for the revoca- the ex- If the proba- a violat- yet shown grant opin- Like- could least is a pro- crime, regular by jury may speedily certainly probation, trial revoke the judge holding usually will follow. when the such court has be- by probationer judge a decision Again, the come satisfied that the has bro- granted probation, probation by committing made in ad- ken a condition of court which regular crime, very high trial of the will be of value. vance criminal The might prejudice majority probationers charge, prosecu- either the are and will be regular youthful, or the defense on the or at least of trial of the less than normal charge. intelligence; The persons faet adult and to such revoked, very been promptly had a belief on that can exercised judge respected that the part is much more efficacious than crime, might, committed a if high- only that can be exercised known, after the REPORTER, FEDERAL 2d SERIES will

finally there power does not exist necessarily show that though tion. versing of' tended that the have the volved dissenting, on the bation proper: cussed bation has ditions reasons, criminal trial of a them, granted probation fluenced tle shall havior, power courts. essarily usual criminal great cretion, Supreme ary power C. layed E.S. nished such cases revocation must behavior would he the commission of law have been behavior. The most serious and the inducement to put strongest control, have (frequently Renew, 132 In the “The circuit crime and support effect of itself add case. But cases not extend .may 47, 52. value. This selected This upon such terms result revoke by probation it does exist as in their State delicacy of purpose that a waiting possibility ^[128] Provided, said shown of an inducement to subjected these cases already action on be reasons would expressed the belief that Sullivan sympathy, suspend sentences slow) processes of of a trial erroneous; and part in advance of The South Carolina violated finally subsequent acquittal judge holding S. E. prosecution. acquittal I by the juries of South Sullivan, 5) to eases punish subsequently of the Probation judges greatly to the be held purposely an been revoked consideration judgment belief that reads to all probation, without nec- in the- ease action authority, those Case, Judge Cothran, the revocation completed. incentive much weakened of the criminal not here are so recent proceeding in such good behavior, fur- long-continued promptly at the criminal of this state shall by other Code have a discretion- the chances April 7, 1926, re Carolina who, holding that acquittal felony.” follows: breach of do As a deterrent abeyance always be de- decision frequently S. C. revoke involved, Congress Cr. may exist in the criminal the criminal after the lacking independent effectiveness gives imposed cases, not discuss at bar. court which I statute power to such Act is their improper to revoke authority good Proc. in State does crimes; fit and proba- charge no lit- in all if until good even good trial pro- self- who dis dis- not be- in- in in- to have been S. prejudiced held not to show more than one fraud, and not to be 5. Criminal pearing that mission of more than 10385). of scheme to would lay by 3. Indictment filing circular to cifically stating ecution of required, give delivered, prise, 4. Criminal fact shown absence fendant was United States motion to Louisiana; found was made pare defense. In the cause state method jection; ered by, counsel properly overruled. Failure of made (Circuit Indictment Indictment and information testimony; mails the order In Error to n Indictment Even if Objection Requested instruction Defendant was district, quash participated. ground McLENDON v. UNITED STATES.* bill of in view of statement it, order counsel. prove judge by showing Renew indictment, shown (Rev. and accused not quash, being having sufficient mail to defraud is not available ob- be delivered conclusion of the indictment, thereby, explanation single concurred in indictment be law law furtherance of Benjamin E. objection properly defendant’s order for overruling motion to being indictment indictment’s material particulars, announcing how it defraud, uncontradieted and information under Cr. inmode which defendant caused St. July 19, 1926.) §St. <@=>753(2). for the Western District <@=l 169(2). Case this that defendant indictment for not when being cumulative drawing the District No. 4729. scheme causing § so made. not but information circular Appeals, overruled; objectionable, though eight drawing grand jury one judge prejudiced out cannot, by mail, in substantial properly overruled, it on that to more government’s Code, subject Dawkins, Judgei [Comp. circular excuse for crime opportunity grand position fraudulent prevail; months after eight when was caused testimony elicited the four prejudiced his jury Fifth Circuit. <@=>139 under Rev. St. criminal trial. Court of the § <@=>125(4,41). evidence scheme to taken involve (Comp. government’s months after district, St. 215-, <©=>137(6)— jury, absent furtherance evidence particuiarly find for de- rights allegations. ground, more prejudiced attack admission seems to quash, § be deliv- long —Motion scheme, for use 1691]). counsel judges there- tend- St. § were from com- filed, pre- spe- sur- held was ap- be- de- ex- de-i

* Certiorari —, 71 L. Ed. —. denied 47

Case Details

Case Name: Riggs v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date Published: Jun 8, 1926

Citation: 14 F.2d 5

Docket Number: 2470, 2471

Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.