United States v. Kathryn Frances Hand

deprived of was not Parr Archer trial.24 fair America, STATES UNITED Plaintiff-Appellee,

VI HAND, Kathryn Frances Defendant-Appellant. RECANTATION PROVISION THE 73-1949.

No. Appeals, Court United States given Archer Parr the Mi Circuit. Fifth warning. this, In addition randa he contends that he should have been in 28, 1975. July provision of the recantation formed of 18 1623(d).25 Rehearing He cites Sept. § U.S.C. Denied 1975. Lardieri, There the court held 317. that where prosecutor threatens a witness with conviction,

a perjury requires fairness

that he also be informed of his rehearing,

recant. On re holding.

versed this 506 F.2d 319. Weis,

Judge dissenting, stressed the nar original

rowness of the holding. 506 Here,

F.2d at 325. Archer Parr was nei

ther threatened nor warned. And he by pretrial

had not raised the issue mo 12(b)(2).

tion under Rule We see no rea grant relief

son from the waiver un

der that rule.

VII

CONCLUSION

The record compels this Court to con- clude that Archer perjury imped- Parr’s grand jury’s attempt to determine

whether the activities of George and

Archer Parr violated federal law. Arch- er Parr could ask for money from the District “when needed it”. petit [he]

jury could reasonably conclude that the

payments to Archer Parr were not for legal services or any legitimate purpose; that Archer perjured Parr him- self in his testimony before grand

jury.

Affirmed. made, person Phillips making Indeed in the court held that a declaration false, prosecutor implying declaration statement admits such to be such ad- prosecution government prosecutes only guilty shall bar mission under this sec- if, error, made, at the time the held to be harmless admission taken substantially has not text. declaration affected the. the proceeding, or it has not become mani- 1623(d) § U.S.C. reads: falsity has fest exposed. that such been or will be Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration indictment, which led to her she

events testified, she discovered serious short- accounts, age of cash in the Union steadily over shortage which increased ensuing many time to thousands of In effective control of the dollars. Un- accounting operations, ion’s she admitted having growing shortage concealed the from federal examiners over the course audits, annual but maintained of several that she had no idea where the funds going. technique were she used to shortage hide the is known in accountan- using cy “lapping”: later cash re- deposits rely- ceipts to match earlier ing posting delay bridge gap on what should have been in the between coffers and what was. We affirm her conviction. Perrin, Susman, Mark W. L. Morton I. Tex., Roberson, Houston, for M. Thomas Search Seizure Contention defendant-appellant. Farris, Atty., Rob- Anthony J. P. U. Appellant S. Hand had concealed in sev Houston, Darden, Atty., purses many Asst. U. S. eral cash-received

ert vouchers scheme, Tex., plaintiff-appellee. evidencing concealing shortage.

credit union’s These were located in or on file cabinets and desks in the Union’s office. At the ex moment, after, very shortly act she BROWN, Judge, and Chief Before Hale, given examiner, had the federal BELL, .GEWIN, WISDOM, THORN- probable thief, cause to think her the she GOLDBERG, COLEMAN, BERRY, sending him that she advised DYER, GODBOLD, AINSWORTH, word, purses. receiving these On he CLARK, MORGAN, SIMPSON, RONEY opened ascertain whether —to GEE, Judges. Circuit they hers, or not he testified1—and discovered the incriminating vouchers. * GEE, Judge: Assuming that Hale was the sort of Kathryn Frances Hand was convicted and seizures person to whose searches jury of ten counts of embezzlement by a applies, his the Fourth employer, federally from her insured these circum- search of appeal presents, credit union. Her others, with stances, reasonable, natural and however contentions unreasonable us, questions. close raises Before seizure, search and of deficiencies in the justify United States seeks to it under proof, indictment and variances in and of “plain exception view” to warrant the requirements, inadequate defense retained trial contending that Hale counsel. the evidence blundered bookkeeper Hand was the and of- attempt Mrs. course of an innocent to find manager was, indeed, fice of ILA 1351 Federal Credit This his tes- identification. Houston, Union), (the operating timony, and the trial court considered years before the suppress Texas. About 2V2 after rejected a motion subject *The and author the same as in An assertion somewhat dubious first opinion, blush, (5th 1974), they handbags, 497 F.2d 929 since were women’s portions opinion appear only considerable of that in the other female who worked office here, quotation opened appears present without marks or further attri- to have been when he bution. them. seem the court April suspend- thus it. It accounts. On she was hearing an in limine explanation, ed. credited Hale’s be reluc we would fact-finding which day, April 9, The next Hale was in a cold record.2 On overturn tant employee the other female formed hand, of the court’s the basis the other Union, Westergreen, that Mrs. indicates not clear: the record ruling is telephoned Hand had about some miss urged that Hale was government the ing ledger Hand, cards. Hale called Mrs. citizen, to merely private a whose told and she him the names of various safeguards Fourth searches had, members ledger whose cards she the defense memo apply, not did said, mysteriously appeared that morn nega sought subject on the randum ing porch. on her front Hale the exception. warrant as a consent tive president credit union went to her home merely overruled the defense court day that same and received from her elaboration. suppress, without motion ledger corresponding cards to the names circumstances, where we are In these given she had telephone, over the most assurance to determine unable of which were torn across and which fact-find the court made the whether taping Hale together. recalled back stumbling upon the evi ing Upon —innocent office, Hale’s return to the Union plain excep view upon which the dence — again Mrs. Hand called and confessed rest, proceed further.3 must we must shortage a that of going funds had been requires so consideration To do on at the Union for two-and-a-half leading up facts years, during period this she had early April, concealing shortage, arrived the When Hale and that though examination of she to make his annual did know where the Union, pre- gone three funds had willing he was aware from she was to make the continuing amount of its some of restitution.4 examinations vious handling of cash. He with the problem time, At about the same Mrs. Hand to be the one who Mrs. Hand considered Hale, in this call a told either or in also on, he discover- Early “ran” the Union. day, she was third call to him that shortage thirty-dollar cash related sending purses for some of her which In the voucher. particular cash to a office, as well as were in some audit, signs ominous other course of process In the of books and scarves. appeared too Interest income appeared. gathering up property, Hale testi- About of loans. the volume small fied, opened purses, looking he $22,000 delinquent loans unreported cards or for other identification credit Hand, Upon inquiry of Mrs. surfaced. as Mrs. Hand’s. This he found. them delay day’s produced she —ex- found over 150 vouchers minut- He also —after covering the delin- agreements tension ing in tens of cash transactions thou- loans, sig- these bore but four of quent dollars, which ini- most of were sands felt, and advised natures which Hale receiving Mrs. tell- tialed Hand as Hand, appeared suspicious. worst, Assuming the that a er. deliber- supposed signato- check with one of ate, purses warrantless search of the was receipt showing his loan produced ries Hale, point by does it carried out at this all, paid. but had not been extended pass Fourth Amendment muster? point, Hale advised Union’s At this situation, suggesting By We conclude that it does. sus- board thorough Hale learned of Mrs. Hand and a time Hand’s imme of Mrs. pension purpose to remove her all diate investigation verification that, likely court Though had the it seems McCormick, (2d 2. See Evidence 53 at 121 § disingenuously, testifying Hale 1972): “Accordingly, felt the traditional Ed. under consequences ensued. would have generally accepted principle view and the finality judge prelimi- trial decides with those prob- certainly amount revelations 4. Which nary questions depends of fact able cause. admissibility of an item of evidence objected exclusionary to under an rule. . .” office, decisive jug- purses, had the scale is from the she admitted send accounts; juncture ly tipped. the Union’s numer- Hale’s choices gling unexamined, appeared financial records had ous of its release home, highly suspicious them under cir- release while he con at her to refuse to indicating and in a condition enforcement authori regular tacted law cumstances issued, destroy inspect aborted effort them. and warrant ties guided by cause existed to believe that and be what he Probable their contents previously existing, she had concealed and re- the first found. Probable might again conceal have been dereliction of moved or re- would course duty. records, two, and the were a the latter if Hale’s move likely As to “investigative” position vehicle for either action. Hale was such official have been remiss in his to Fourth Amendment duty subject would had him strictures, permitted perforce he such containers such as to au and their away immobilizing to be taken from the thorize his seizure contents accounting power seize, determining purses. Having files without they being were presented, so used. in the he had the situation seized, duty having to so. And do may circumstances, It be that in these lesser was to check the absent even Mrs. Hand’s notice that she and, if none were for Union documents sending purses, was for the Hale would found, ado. to them without more release by have authorized Union’s con 42, Maroney, 399 51— v. U.S. Chambers 52, to sent examine the contents of whatev 1975, 1981-1982, 26 L.Ed.2d 90 S.Ct. er containers he found in and about the 419, (1970); 428 United States v. Sori that purses files. record indicates Cir., banc, (5th ano, 147 en were either or on the file cabinets or 1974). office, in the desks and it does not indi cate Mrs. Hand use is true that the facts of Chambers had of these It furnishings to the from these and from exclusion of Soriano differ other em and contrary.5 other, that Mrs. ployees, rather true moreover And each and though personal handbags imply and her privacy, not under arrest6 Hand was contain, the fact that were not numbers of them did not and were left contain, about the thought office while she was contraband or dan elsewhere to places they these in position a little But per gerous more instrumentalities. sonal, all, movable, if at she had announced a easily than that which would been held a remove positive have closed folder and immediate intent to found marked, files say, probable in the cause to be “K. them. There was F. rate, evidence, any they Hand-Personal.” At contained he re lieve that preserve stating opportunity ceived Mrs. Hand’s call to it was fleet pur cause, moreover, to remove had pose ing. probable present place a un suddenly in a where he was and as result of arisen authorized to be Hand’s and to most of which he had an circumstances—Mrs. unques foreseeable abrupt cooking the books. tioned access. confession requirements applica for the exact

Thus exi- set out Mr. Justice is added of Chambers to these But purpose complied stated with: White were Hand’s gency circumstance, highly specific sonably purse with the desk for her This search the present probable belong anything cause here did not of the or else that nature employer] government Mrs. Hand have concealed her had no con- believe [her property purposes, employer’s for her own of the F.2d nection with the work office.” 188 distinguish Here, though purse at bar the case from Unit- at 1021. Mrs. Hand’s tends to which, Blok, U.S.App.D.C. searched, precisely 188 88 such ed States v. it was matter employer’s cause, (1951), sought. probable in which an F.2d 1019 validate search held ineffective sent was Though probable her doubt- arrest a crime of desk re- an extraneous evidence at the time search. less existed employee’s exclusive use. There for an served superiors could not rea- noted: “Her the Court 476 is, course, It true that on its facts fur- circumstances . . is an “automobile” case. But partic- search cause to probable

nish is, then Tompkins7 Erie R.R. Co. v. are articles particular auto ular sense, case, the same moreover, “railroad” unforeseeable; Harry often most Tompkins having been there fleeting is search opportunity lasting fame and a tort suit Where readily movable. car is since passing freight. At least two of our sis v. true, in Carroll [Carroll ter circuits read Chambers as broadly ap 132, 45 S.Ct. States, 267 U.S. United plicable probable whenever cause is sud before and the case L.Ed. 543] and the den chance to fleeting. search is to be effective now, if an us Mehciz, United States v. 437 F.2d 145 time, the search either any made (9th Cir.), denied, cert. 402 U.S. immediately without made be must (1971); L.Ed.2d 139 must be car itself warrant Evans, (9th 481 F.2d 990 Cir. a warrant without held seized 1973); Johnson, United States necessary obtain period whatever (2d F.2d 1972), denied, cert. for the a warrant U.S. 37 L.Ed.2d 1042 (1973). majority And a of the Supreme join Court has refused to in later lan preference Arguably, because of the guage characterizing Chambers as limit magistrate’s for a judgment, only the automobiles, in force to often immobilization the car should be passage overlooked that Coolidge permitted until a search warrant Hampshire8 v. New sought to do obtained; arguably, only the ‘lesser’ joined by only so in four Justices. permissible mag- intrusion is until the In totality circumstances istrate ‘greater.’ authorizes But by case, we therefore con ‘greater’ which is the and which the clude that the reasoning of Chambers ‘lesser’ is itself debatable transcends its setting factual sufficiently question and may depend the answer justify the search. And we have held variety on a of circumstances. For in Carlton v. Estelle9 that a warrantless purposes, constitutional we see no dif- parked search of a car for “mere evi ference between on the one hand seiz- justified dence” was by presence ing holding present- car before persons presumably sympathetic to Carl probable ing the mag- cause issue to a might away ton who have made with it. and on the istrate carrying hand suspect Here the herself had avowed an out an immediate search without immediate intent to have the movable probable warrant. Given suspect removed, articles and it well search, either course is reasonable un- appeared there be another or oth der Fourth Amendment.” persons er unknown with an interest 50-2, U.S., Maroney, v. at tampering 399 with them. The seizure and S.Ct., L.Ed.2d, (em- at 26 handbags at 428 search of the permissib 90 added). phasis le.10 fendant, confederates, his known if any,

7. 304 U.S. 58 S.Ct. 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). immobilized an arrest or re- sufficiently as amounting and the arrest, to de facto straint U.S., 8. 403 91 S.Ct., 29 baggage to be searched under sufficient con- L.Ed.2d, at 581. excusing that no factors fail- trol police, (5th Cir.), denied, F.2d 759 cert. 414 9. 480 U.S. magistrate In ure to to the existed. apply (1973). 546, 38 L.Ed.2d 334 and, if she at bar Mrs. Hand were be- case suggested large It has been that our recent deci- the unknown thief were both at lieved, baggage-search form of case— in one where the sions with means of access to the office (5th handbags v. 477 F.2d 1306 Cir. means short of Garay, were, United so that no Lonabaugh, 1973); carrying magistrate’s States v. 494 F.2d of- (5th 1973); v. Cir. United States Ander- him them fice with could Hale have secured (5th 1974) obtaining F.2d 1311 Cir. op- search warrant. How much son, —are our conclusions in this case. But reasonable to check one quickly more posed are cases different traband! factually quite these from In each of them our saw the de- ours. panel II. shortage of funds and to tell him of her willingness to make restitution. During Was Jurisdiction Indictment: this conversation Mrs. Hand told Hale Alleged and Proved? that she would send someone to the Un- adopt II of the Part We pick up personal ion’s office to be- above, opinion as the headed opinion,11 books, scarves, longings, some and two sufficiency on Court purses. gathering up In her property emphasize that we hold We indictment. delivery messenger, to Mrs. Hand’s indictment with than that this more no deliberate, Hale made a warrantless objection made for the first an stands search of the and found incrimi- apparent it is appeal, where time nating evidence them. rights were not substantial Hand’s I find it passing strange exigent Eaton, United States Cf. affected. circumstances, the foundation used (5th 1974). Cir. F.2d the majority approve the search of purses, urged not in the district III. court, is never mentioned in record, argued was not Inadequacy upon by of Trial Counsel and relied Government in original briefs, Matters. its Other makes its appearance for the first time adopt pan- We likewise Part III of panel opinion. in the majority, upon only that since our adding opinion, el intervening finding probable cause search, for the Fitzger- en banc decision adds to it exigency “the of Mrs. Hand’s Estelle, (5th ald 1974), purpose stated to send for purses,” yet that Hand’s it is more evident and concludes that “the scale is decisive- assistance from her retained counsel was ly tipped.” inadequate. purpose” “stated to send for her Affirmed. hardly exigent, pressing, urgent critical or circumstance DYER, with whom Judge, premise parallelism THORNBERRY, WISDOM, GOLD- automobile search cases. Hale had the R. MOR- BERG, and LEWIS SIMPSON purses in his sole and posses exclusive join, dissenting GAN, Judges, as sion and was under no contraint to deliv I: to Part er them to Mrs. messenger Hand’s or 8, 1971, April anyone On Mrs. Hand was sus- else obtaining before a search pended apply and relieved of her warrant. duties as To “exigent” word bookkeeper and manager say office to this situation is to “when I use a word, departed. just On the ... it means following what I Hale, telephoned choose it day she the federal ex- mean—neither more nor 1 aminer, from her less.” home to talk about the F.2d, can, indeed, 11. 497 These decisions be extended to 932-5. principle holding in with Chambers’ conflict ” seize, right has the if one he has the you “I by ‘glory,’ don’t know what mean that, search; appear but it does not Humpty Dumpty contemp- Alice said. smiled aspect argued tuously. you this Chambers was to our you. “Of course don’t —till 1 tell any attempt panels in those cases or made to argument I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down ’ ” analyze police along you! ‘glory’ actions taken in them “But doesn’t mean ‘a nice ” greater-intrusion, lesser-intrusion lines. What argument,’ objected. knock-down Alice analysis word,” of such an would have Humpty the result Dumpty “When I use a said in been, say, tone, cannot but we need not disturb just we rather a scornful “it means what I case, authorities to decide this the factor these choose it to mean —neither more nor less.” is,” question Alice, control the authorities of the item you of secure “The said “whether them, present in each of searched things.” to be can make words mean different “The may is,” here. therefore question Humpty absent Chambers Dumpty, but said “which is necessarily applied properly here without be to be master —that’s all.” they extending to the situations Carroll, Through Looking Lewis Glass enough present. when another such as Time apply we are asked to is this analysis it. rule and the Chambers’ 478 warrant- the extent scope vindicates into of a now majority warrantless The incursion, any objects” demanding that imposition “mobile searches

less greater sei- on the citizen be preceding warrantless no than a if context constitutionally permissible. requires. See, g., occasion e. United zure reasoning Leeuwen, 1970, this is Cham- v. Van States 397 express source U.S. 249, itself, 1029, 282; that with re- which indicated 90 S.Ct. 25 L.Ed.2d Chi bers automobile, permissible California, 1969, 752, v. to an mel 762-64, 395 spect U.S. justified 2034, 685; an immedi- 89 23 seizure S.Ct. L.Ed.2d warrantless York, 1968, What the 'ma- v. 40, New 392 warrantless Sibron ate U.S. 65, 1889, ignores expanding Chambers 88 20 jority S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 917. This has, cases of United until today, faithfully the non-auto Court inter adhered Anderson, 1974, See, analysis. g., 5 Cir. v. e. United States States 1311; Lonabaugh, Gravitt, 375; 1973, v. 5 Cir. States v. 5 Cir. 484 United F.2d 1257; 1973, 1973, United v. Cyzewski, F.2d States United 5 494 States 1306, 509; 1973, 477 F.2d is that F.2d Garay, 484 v. Skipwith, 5 Cir. 1973, expressly short, limited Cool- 5 Cir. F.2d 1272. In Chambers 1971, Hampshire, necessity 403 U.S. idge qua v. New remains the sine non of 20, 2022, exceptions 29 L.Ed.2d n. requirement. S.Ct. the warrant aside, the auto-search situation. solely to Auto searches exigencies when the this, go. cannot necessitating Beyond a warrantless incursion dis fundamentally, majority’s More sipate, resort to magistrate must be broadly equation sweeps so simplistic Supreme stated, had. As the Court has principles of Fourth flout settled are not dealing with formalities. “[w]e gov- law. The extent of presence of a search warrant serves into an ernmental individual’s high function. grave Absent some privacy always has been a crit- protected emergency, the Fourth Amendment has component determining reasona- ical interposed magistrate between the citi under the Fourth Amendment. bleness police.” zen McDonald v. Unit Ohio, 1968, example, Terry v. For States, 1948, 451, 455, 335 U.S. 20 L.Ed.2d U.S. 88 S.Ct. 191, 193, 93 S.Ct. L.Ed. 153. unmistakably teaches that a determina- may Whatever be the final delineation of the lawfulness of warrantless exceptions of ment, require- warrant only inquiry. Any half the seizure ensuing vigilantly we must bear in mind search, incursion, an additional imperative that absent circumstances a justified tied to ‘strictly be “must warrantless search per se unreason- which rendered its by’ the circumstances Coolidge able. Hampshire, New permissible.” Id. initiation supra, 454-55, 2022; 403 U.S. at Terry, Had accosted at 1878. States, 1967, Katz v. United 389 U.S. by investigating the the street offi- on cer, 347, 357, 19 L.Ed.2d 576. I suitcase, transporting a a full- respectfully Anderson, submit that Lona- bag’s the contents would search of scale baugh Garay and expressions are correct a far different situation have unchallenged of this heretofore principle. gar- of his pat-down outer than limited These cases are now by overruled the pur- for the narrow accomplished ments majority’s transparent attempt to distin- detecting weapons. “The Fourth pose guish indistinguishable. I dissent. proceeds as much limita- scope governmental ac- upon the tions GODBOLD, Judge, dissenting Circuit preconditions upon by imposing tion as I: Part as to 28-29, at initiation.” Id. its agree Judge Dyer except I in his (Emphasis supplied). Garay,1 Lonabaugh2 that The conclusion and generis. sui Terry v. Ohio is Nor have been overruled. Anderson3 consistently inquired has Supreme Court Anderson, F.2d 1311 States v. Garay, (CA5, 3. United 1. United States F.2d 1306 1974). (CA5, 1973). Lonabaugh, 2. United States v. 494 F.2d 1257 1973). (CA5, any der majori or either of the my confusion indictment I confess counts.2 say on the which seems rationale

ty’s exigent since there that hand one (a) As to I am content my to rest empowered to was Hale circumstances position the statement panel of the seized he justifiably having seize, and that opinion, 497 F.2d intru (the “greater-lesser could skimpier jurisdiction A assertion of hand it theory), while on sion” scarcely imagined be than we can find Lonabaugh An Garay, distinguishes is, moreover, The element one' here. cases in those ground that derson which can in no sense be waived or control” already had “secure police verdict, type of the cured e., “greater (i. involved item whose absence for consid- is available been consummat already had intrusion” even on motion in arrest of eration was no there ed), therefore judgment, nonexplanation we Despite this apply accept and bound statements, are as well as the additional Garay, Lona conclusion majority’s F.2d at 933: a field retain baugh and Anderson question The of the existence vel in situations and are viable operation non of insurance was not submitted to applicable.4 they are where jury as an element of the offense charged, appellant contends that SIMPSON, Judge, Circuit with whom consequently the jury failed to find a DYER, Judge, joins, dissenting as crucial jurisdictional element of II: to Part alleged crimes. As to the accusa- Judge dissent, I concur in Dyer’s tion of having embezzled from a feder- fully myself associate with his views as ally insured institution, appellant constitutionally impermissible na- entirely correct: it was proved neither ture of warrantless search and sei- nor found. involved in this appeal. zure argument panel advanced Additionally, I dissent from Part II of that Mrs. Hand knew what she opinion majority opinion the court, for the en “ banc * * * with, embezzling charged adopts Part II of the employer from her named funds disagree at 932—935. I opinion, 497 F.2d * * * “plain ”—and hence the and con- postu of the two Part II as to each requirement 7(c), of Rule cise statement” (a) that a federal of lates it advances: was satisfied—is wide of the F.R.Crim.P. under Title fense Section mark. charged by any or either of the ten under which Mrs. Hand was not counts dieted,1 Hand was in- on trial in a state court, (b) proof general where allegations there was of em- bezzlement specified of a federal offense un- from a the commission employer (1970), personal having majority’s unqualified L.Ed.2d 419 effects citation of United Soriano, subject (CA5, no nexus to an 1974) automobile to search. 497 F.2d 147 banc) (en arguably implies that the decision in counts, indictment contained ten 1. The each supports greater-lesser case except nine for dates and to the other identical intended, concept. implication If such an count, I, sample copied amounts. Count supportable. explicitly is not That decision (5th Cir.) panel opinion, in the text upon concept rested of automobile search F.2d 933. provid- the nexus an and to automobile search language of Mr. Black 2. See the Justice in Cole just the facts that the suitcases had 196, 201, Arkansas, 1948, 333 U.S. v. 514, placed removed from the taxicab and on the 92 L.Ed.2d 647: contempo- and one of them searched sidewalk raneously process much a violation of due the removal. 497 F.2d at 149- as to “It is prison following footnote 6. This an accused to convic- 150 and court eschewed a send charge upon ruling which generalized applicability of a he was never on the of the language as it would be to convict him greater-lesser of tried charge Maroney, that was never made”. 399 U.S. appear of the coin here. Both sides Instead, she was trial suffice. day’s in the books. It will return to vex jurisdiction whose was limited court in a us on day. another laws, of violations federal here trying to deference, With I dissent from the ma- 18, U.S.C., Title 657. specifically Section opinion jority on the basis of these views Jurisdiction, affirmatively appearing not II, toas Part as well as respect indictment, face of from the unconstitutional search and seizure, present. never simply convincingly so explicated by Judge proposition, to the second that As re- Dyer. shortcomings of the of gardless indictment, charge, as some- laid ON PETITION FOR REHEARING made out: in addition to a case was how PER CURIAM: quotations, from Part II of supra, additional, opinion, I turn petition It is ordered opinion, in that 497 F.2d at statement rehearing in the above entitled and filed 933: be and same is here- numbered undisputed It the United by denied. proof depos- offered no that the States THORNBERRY, WISDOM, GOLD- its of insured in the BERG, DYER, and MOR- SIMPSON charged. manner GAN, Judges, grant would Circuit enough That end matter. rehearing for the reasons petition point to the As covered Judge DYER’s dissent to Part I stated dissent, Judge Dyer’s majority labors banc, opinion of court en mightily salvage a patently unconsti- GODBOLD, Judge, do Circuit would so and seizure. tutional search This ad hoc separate stated in his the reasons purpose, approach serves the in addition opinion, I of that Part and dissent conviction, preserving Mrs. Hand’s SIMPSON, Judges, and DYER approving unbelievably sloppy police the additional do so for reasons would work. Judge SIMPSON’s dissent to stated II, this dissent Part toAs II thereof. Part and insuf- inefficient

directed, incredibly a United proof by and pleading ficient assistant, his perhaps Attorney, States is not approved, certainly not valid perceive a not I do either. demned gen- rescue court for this reason

tleman. pun- from may escape Mrs. Hand That ESTELLE, Jr., W. Director, In re J. by more here is overshadowed ishment Department Corrections, Texas et perform- Poor important considerations. al., Petitioners. prosecutors and investigators ance No. 75-1464. unscathed pass muster should of an ad homi- basis on the uncensured Appeals, Court of offense of some guilt approach that Fifth Circuit. nem miscon- This record. from the is clear July reviewing prime function our ceives occa- also suggest I of law. errors Rehearing En Banc Rehearing police criticism merited sional Oct. Denied advance- is beneficial prosecutors discipline. good order ment punish- detection crime Efficient is retarded but not advanced ment to- such place precedents we

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Kathryn Frances Hand

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Jul 28, 1975

Citation: 516 F.2d 472

Docket Number: 73-1949

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.