United States v. Ronald L. Casson

of America UNITED STATES CASSON, Appellant.

Ronald L.

Nos. Appeals, Court District Columbia Circuit.

Argued Oct.

Decided March amending prior robbery

ment for P.M. Between 10 laws on crimes.4 both day, appellant and 11 P.M. on the same company person with Casson in another home, burglarized prop- certain stole erty of- therein committed other any fenses. The did not make provision respect enactment with provide: date but did Whoever, prior 1101. See. Act, date of of this commits enactment any engages any in act or conduct an constitutes offense Act, of law amended in with shall be sentenced accordance com- effect date he engages con- mits such acts 22- duct. 81 S.tat. D.C.Code § fixing any provision the absence of effect, exact it time for the law would take effect the same time C., Goldberg, Washington, Mr. Jacob D. enactment criminal Flaningam, with whom Mr. Norman A. Attorney in- laws. The Washington, (both appointed D. C. having terpreted taken the statute court) brief, appel- was on the for crimes, he effect to Casson’s lant. indicted, accordingly convicted and Philip Kellogg, Atty., Mr. L. S. Asst. U. burglary new sentenced under appellee. Bress, for Messrs. David G. robbery statutes, as amended.5 Casson Atty. U. S. at the time the record was challenges now his on the bur- convictions filed, Flannery, Atty., Thomas A. U. S. glary ground counts on the Terry, Atty., and John A. Asst. U. S. that he was denied constitutional also appearances entered appellee. for rights by what contends effect TAMM, Before post application MaeKINNON an ex new facto ROBB, Judges. Circuit statutes. We dismiss his contention and affirm. MaeKINNON, Judge: Circuit I At 3:05 P.M. on 27,1967, December signature President affixed his to an act Allowing for difference which, District of Columbia1 zones between “The Ranch” Dis- and the alia,,

inter defined the crime of Columbia, trict of is noted that degree, the first increased the mini- crimes were committed about six hours mum and punishment maximum there- bill. for,2 and punish- increased the minimum subsequently Casson was four indicted on 1. The endorsement on the enrolled bill (a) (1967),Burglary 2. D.C.Code 22-1801 preserved in the National Archives is as degree, in the first 81 Stat. 736. follows: D.C.Code, (1967), Robbery, 22-2901 Lyndon B. Johnson 81 Stat. 737. 3:05 P.M. Housebreaking 1323-1324); Stat. The Ranch Robbery (31 1322). judicial Official records are matters knowledge. Wigmore, IX J. Evidence And two other offenses. 2568a, (3d §§ 1940). ed. question ex face not Degree Burglary), with on its (First here I counts: expose appellant persons were does entering dwelling since while punishment prop- increased therein, to steal present intent another; force after its commission. (Robbery), erty II against resistance and violence having been concurrent sentences With taking stealing putting in fear recog- II, adjudged I we on Counts immediate from the person and Hirabay- possible application of nize the designated person, possession of a actual 81, 63 United 320 ashi v. U.S. persons of a value property of other 1375, (1943), but be- 87 S.Ct. L.Ed. 1774 assaulting IV, $392.50; III and about Maryland, U.S. cause Benton v. dangerous weapon, persons with a two (1969), 784, 89 S.Ct. 23 L.Ed.2d 707 shotgun. that is a directly appellant’s we to deal elect ea; post contention.8 guilty jury ver facto returned The defendant was on counts and dicts appeal appellant makes two On given as follows: concurrent sentences First, principal asserts contentions. he II, years Counts I and five to fifteen signing did not that the actual of the bill years III to ten on Counts three place endorsed on at 3:05 P.M. as amendments, IV. Under the 1967 at and as the Statutes the bill stated (the burglary charged in I offense Count Large, place but at 11 P.M. instead took imprisonment count), penalty was newspapers. Sec some changed by Congress two to fifteen from ondly, the event that the bill years thirty years; and under to five to signed P.M., alleges, al at he in the 3:05 (the count), the mini Count II ternative, was not announced punishment mum six increased from publicly until around 11 P.M. and years imprisonment two while months to the time the announcement was punishment stayed fif the maximum at fixing appli determinative time years. teen actual concurrent Thus the cation of the bill to his conduct. He thus adjudged on both I and sentences counts larger expose contends that him to the given years) II to 15 have been could penalties in the amended act contained appellant under con law but would, effect, make the criminal stat guarantee tends that the constitutional post applicable ute to him on an ex facto against post were, ex in ef laws facto contrary provisions basis U.S. fect, exposed violated because Const, I, art. cl. 3.9 larger punishments.7 Lindsey v. Washington, 57 S.Ct. U.S. II (1937). It L.Ed. is well settled post law,

that an ex under the con facto We first consider when the bill guarantee upon, stitutional here relied is actually signed. original The one “which makes more burdensome embodying document punishment the actual bill which crime, for a its com * * preserved mission, (Emphasis the National Archives supplied) Ohio, Beazell contains a 269 U.S. written S.Ct. notation that it was 70 L.Ed. But the statute at P.M. “3:05 * * * post “No ex facto separate Law shall felony, though punished even passed.” I, be U.S.Const. art. cl. might sentence, concurrent entail prejudicial consequences collateral upon 7. He makes no attack the sentences provided by as are habitual criminal stat- adjudged on Counts III and IV. utes be used to char- imxreach Maryland, 8. Benton v. 395 U.S. acter at some future trial. (1969) points S.Ct. 23 L.Ed.2d 707 out that concurrent sentences for differ- give The trial court stated it would ent crimes do not remove elements punishment statute; same cither necessary justiciable to create a or ease this is not material on the ex controversy, and that conviction on contention. presented The Ranch.”10 to the President of the [at] States; approve If he he shall Constitution of the noWhile * * sign to affix *. requires President signing, the notation or date inescapable The conclusion contemporaneous memoran- constitutes a language who drafted the those fact of the evidence dum and is best Constitution intended a bill to “become permits. case of the the nature law” when the indicates his President upon bill the the notation on the Based approval by signing applicable it. The publication of the United States official this con- United States statute buttresses Congress, Large, 1st 90th Statutes by providing, clusion inter alia: (1967), fore- which states Session * * * a bill Whenever authority part that it is “Published Representatives, Senate having House Adminis- the direction of the approved by been the President Office trator of Services General * * * it shall forthwith be received Register, National Ar- of the Federal by the of General Serv- Administrator Service,” that states chives and Record * * ices from President *. question “approved De- the act in Act of October U.S.C. 106a. § (81 cember 744). 3:05 P.M.” 655, 2(b), ch. 65 Stat. 710. § that has declared recognizes legisla- The statute thus Large be United at States Statutes process being complete tive when the “legal accord- evidence laws.” We “approved by bill is the President” be- ingly approved at decide that the bill was passes it cause then “from President” docu- the time endorsed on the official to the Administrator of Services General publica- ment and stated the official “carefully preserve who is directed to alleged in tion rather than at time originals” publish “the United hearsay Hearsay appellant’s affidavits. Large at Statutes which shall con- newspaper not a statements are suf- tain all the laws and concurrent resolu- overcoming ficient basis for the best evi- during regular tions enacted each session susceptible dence of which the case * * * ”14 Congress. Because of presumption regularity.12 statutory provi- these constitutional and sions we determine that framers Ill thereof intended that an act such as is here involved would become a law when next We consider when signed However, the bill. point, became On this the United law. questions precise have arisen as to the I, pro States Constitution in art. § during day legislative time a that a act vides, inter alia: would become effective. Every passed Bill which shall have Representatives the House of and the specific Prior to where no ef- Law, Senate, shall, it designated, before become a fective time was acts of Par- 1, supra. p. 10. (Emphasis See note added). m.” Neither newspaper makes assertion as 11. 1 U.S.C. 05 Stat. signed. when the bill was Both refer Appellant’s alleges motion merely to the the news release time Washington Evening Post and Star of given newspapers 2S, 1967 state that “the press Antonio, President's in San office signed p. at 11:00 m. on said Decem- some miles distant from The Ranch. 27, 1967,” (emphasis added) ber but the Thus, there is no evidence contra newspapers do not state. Post The so signed dicts that the bill was at 3:05 states: “The President at who is appellant’s P.M. This is fatal con Texas, through LB.T Ranch announced respect. tention in this press p.m. office San Antonio at 13. 1 106a. U.S.C. § signed (Emphasis that he had the hill." added). The “The an- Star states: 14. 1 U.S.C. nouncement it came at day Fractions fixed from the first until mid-afternoon. liament commenced recognized. re See In the act the Parliament 17,407) Welman, (No. ex- passed. 29 F.Cas. 681 laws to some Thus “great (D.C.Vt.1844); Howes, 12 F.Cas. In re To correct this tent retroactive. (No. 6,788) (D.C.Vt.1843). How- injustice,” Parliament and manifest Ill, ever, Burgess Salmon, statute, ch. U.S. v. 33 Geo. 1793 13, providing enacted taxing (1878), apply a refused to of Parliament that clerks date, ap- every penalties which was with criminal act the should endorse royal proved by year afternoon as- the President in the it month and receives completed in be to a commercial transaction sent that the endorsement should morning. criminal part to be taken “a of such act and Because enforcing penalties court stated the date of commencement when application Lapeyre the law to provided.” v. a retroactive other U.S.) approval would actual time to its United 17 Wall. (1873). Congress We con- has make it an ex law. 21 L.Ed. 606 supra, Burgess Salmon, requiring sider controlling never a similar enacted ap- point law on and follow and date the President’s proval deciding a law that the bill became of a bill to be endorsed thereon. 3:05 P.M. when was early de States it was President, and not before.15 by opinion cided in Mar Chief Justice com that a civil statute for the IV com mencement of no time which is fixed Zane, mences Having from its date. Matthews v. time the bill be- decided the (20 U.S.) 211, 164, 7 Wheat. 5 L.Ed. 425 whether the came we next consider law (1822). Collector, Wall. Gardner 6 provision v. ex Constitu- (73 U.S.) 504, (1867) apply- 18 imposes impediment L.Ed. 890 to tion remarked, robbery ing burglary of “The date the President’s penalties and approval undoubtedly of the bill is the inference to The not too veiled Casson. law,” date at La argument which it became and appellant’s that he. is peyre States, supra, v. being prosecuted held aof for disobedience presidential (terminating proclamation kept him the which Government 16 hostilities) he civil war knowledge took effect when “from Let us see the of.” signed it, ap knowledge and stated the question same rule what of the laws plied applied present to As laws. to our to was available Casson 1967. situation, those decisions would make no was On December there act day effective at 12:01 A.M. on it the statutory provision constitutiohal or ex- signed by President, was notwith passed by pressly requiring that acts standing signature that his not af- Congress was published they had to be before following Burgess Salmon, In Lapeyre (84 U.S. 97 v. United Wall. 17 (1878), U.S.) 24 L.Ed. 1104 (1873) not we do 21 L.Ed. states: very early overlook the Congressional case of Cotton “Acts before effect * * Planter, * (No. 3,270) they printed published. Ped.Cas. or are embargo They that case an was [have] a valid existence applicable held not permit inquiry a domestic to of their date and ” * ship * * until upon subject notice law was received as to heavily but this was conclusion influenced other v. Col effective date. Gardner embargo the fact lector, (73 U.S.) 499, did 6 Wall. apply foreign ships they congression (1867) received L.Ed. 890 held that express provision notice thereof. This they al acts become effective on date requiring ships foreign signed by actual notice for are the President. distinguishes is one fact and case another one is that 16. 48 Harv.L.Bev. was prohibited (foreign trade) conduct there cited. passage was lawful until em- bargo act. establishing effective.17 The

became and statutes here in- Register good made no example the Federal volved is a of the wide- congressional spread publishing Congress.19 publication or reso- acts bills lutions, (44 bill, and see 82 The U.S.C. H.R. the 90th 10783 of Con- 1274) gress, preceded public Stat. the Public Printer extensive required print hearings beginning copies public all on March slip (1964), laws in form U.S.C. the House Committee on the District 541) permanent Many and form Columbia. Government public appeared close after the of each ses- witnesses and testified proceedings officially and the sion.18 re- promptly corded and and were Appellant’s claim that denied general public. available made however, law, knowledge of the access to Following hearings, the Committee publication widespread overlooks agreed bill, reported met on a fa- Congress gives contents vorably and caused it to be introduced in through journeys legislative as it Representatives the House of on June process. judicial notice of the We take Upon thou- introduction several statutes, applicable established rules copies printed Congress sand of the bill usages which both publish required promptly statute.20 House and distributed Senate Rules, proceedings Also, make same in accordance with the House bills public report printed21 to openly at all times Committee available existing merely inquiry request. The Dis- the text include print pro- comparative Bill Crime and a to show trict of Omnibus Columbia posed con- The bill was contained the amendments amendments.22 701-910, provided proceedings. U.S.C. §§ one they respect prompt particularly 709, publication laws 710 with §§ of new as see slip opinions. newspapers in of sev- to were enacted the (3 576) 439, but these eral states Stat. legislative history 19. The hereafter de- provisions repealed and the Secre- Congressional scribed is Rec- tary of State was directed to deliver ord, Vol. copies printer congressional to for the 131, 20. 44 printing possible §§ U.S.C. as soon as en- (15 40, actment. Stat. Rev.Stat.1878 Representatives of the House of Rules 3803, any 3805). There was never §§ Deschler, States, by of the United Lewis suggestion that the effectiveness Parliamentarian, p. Congress, 374, 90tli any upon way dependent in bill was XIII, reports 745, of Rule cl. 2. “All publication. * * * be committees shall delivered Regarding practice pub the earlier of ” * * * p. printing to the clerk for lishing England, laws in Miller Justice “ * * * 821, XIX, Rule cl. 2 Collector, (73 in Gardner v. 6 Wall. * * * reported from and all bills a U.S.) 499, (1867), quoted 18 L.Ed. 890 accompanied by shall be re- committee as Lord Coke follows: ports writing printed.” in which be [Although proclamation be not made 983, paragraphs 2 and See also § county, every in the one is bound to reports. printing of bills and in notice that which is done take Parliament, of XIII, 22. Id. cl. 3: Rule for as soon as Parliament reports a Whenever committee bill anything, in- the hath concluded joint repairing or or a ing any resolution amend- every person notice tends that hath part it shall statute or thereof represents thereof, for the Parliament report in an accom- in its or include body realm, of and there- the the whole panying document— requisite procla- fore is part (1) text of statute or The the seeing made, the statute mation proposed to be re- thereof which effect took before. pealed ; and part comparative print (2) 90-620, of Law October A 18. Public joint making 1249) the or resolution and codified of the bill revised practices respect pub- prevailing and of the statute or with the amendment congressional proposed amended, distributing lishing part to be thereof Senate, (2) of public printed length in House the session sidered in the Representatives Report, Senate on June Committee body day by printed passed proceedings same the the Senate pages The debates December a vote of 355 to 14. 1967 at reporters Congressional fully 35747 of the official the Record was and were exact form passed conformance with of the bill as it Congressional Record printed Senate. in the On December daily.23 agreed In addition House is issued to the which Senate amendment again in the being complete in bill form available text of the bill printed printed report, Congressional committee the bill in the Record Congressional (pp. 36405-36408). Record extenso This made together 17186) printing (pages fourth of the bill exact- form ly passed analysis as it from the Senate. The bill was section section with the Report placed (pages 17207 to then the Committee in enrolled form and sent to daily of 17210). circulation The for his consideration. 48,- upwards Congressional Record During passage through bill copies. gave pub- the news media wide Senate, public hear- additional In the licity provisions. addition, to its Cas- subcom- ings were held son, person by merely or interested Judiciary Committee mittee of the inquiring easily could determine ex- amend- reported with it was thereafter status the bill and obtain an exact By unani- ments on copy stage in its then form at each ordered consent Senate mous legislative history its introduc- minority Report Committee tion on June the time of its 35562). (Cong.Rec. p. printed views passage Also, final on December 13. amendment, in- Also, the Senate Congressional gave Record no- subsequently as it the entire cluded hearings. tice of all scheduled Senate, printed in passed the 35744-35747). during (pp. inquiry Congressional Had Record been made Congress concerning 90th distribution the District printing involved This Bill, recipients number Columbia H.R. of the usual Omnibus Crime usual investigation number was been made copies.24 usual The provided for copies also rules material available cop- public, extra one would have learned that printing distribution change penalty by proposed the Senate was made in the debated The bill was ies.25 day degree burglary on December for first and 12 and 11 on December body floor the bill was introduced until it was passed without that 12th passed. the by So far June to 9 vote. Thus as back as a 67 amendment by form to the printed in information was available bill bill type stricken-through by showing Rules and Manual of United States columns, appro- Senate, p. 351, referring parallel italics, U.S.O. or other by typographical priate to amendment devices the omis- 131 as it existed proposed 90-620, P.L. Oct. and insertions sions however, Provided, if That a 44 U.S.O. made: joint reports such a bill or committee 25. Rules and Manual of United an amendments with resolution Senate, p. §§ U.S.O. a substitute in nature of amendment the bill, copies pending (1967) ; reprint of report in- such entire for the reports also be bills and committee could print showing comparative clude a Secretary printed of the at the discretion by proposed existing changes of the House of the Senate or the Clerk of as instead amendments or substitute Representatives. § 137 of U.S.O. in the bill as introduced. (1967). Ramseyer Rule. This is known as the 26, 1967, pp. Cong.Rec., June to 17215 Congress pro- showing general public was that this record that it was im- degree penalty possible for first posing person for an fix interested to learn signed and a maxi- a minimum of 5 that President had the bill at respect years. 3:05 story of 30 With P.M. The mum fact that the news robbery, originally penalty on the bill as the bill was not released until several year provided mini- for a 4 hours later in San introduced Antonio does not de- imprisonment by period quickly inquiry termine how of mum an by changed might the House. interested was citizen have evoked the However, Committee the Senate information. With when instantaneous com- proposed they today, minimum munications bill the exist it would only from 4 penalty reduced a few minutes for infor- change took years no and thereafter mation to be to 2 ascertained. December general provision. regular Thus the place Wednesday, in this was a a work- ing to them night. public day, working information available had so it was a As- Congress 8,1967 suming arguendo legislation that from December that must period pass proposing post escape to fix the minimum a notice test an ex robbery at the 2 imprisonment condemnation, of we decide that facto public provided charged final bill. years knowledge are with all published concerning information changes ei were made No congressional during bill that is available provisions December these after ther of legislative Here, process. the entire Up there was 8th. December Congressional Record documents change possibility on of a Congress published by prove that terms IS, exact 1967 the December provisions its were precisely known final months, public domain for over six re- possible change on no publicity ceived the and full widest dis- penalties. either The bill would 100,000 closure and over provisions penal those law with become copies of the exact form in bill in the entirety in its or the bill would be vetoed passed printed, distributed which the President. From general public available over any person in the bill interested 1967 on signed two weeks before the President thing, only one with to be concerned adequate This is no- bill. more than Pres e., time the informed of the i. public of contents of the tice to the it. the bill —if ident particular indi- bill. Actual notice to a showing this infor here There is prerequisite. accord- is not a vidual We obtained could not have been mation chargeable ingly decide that Casson was mem request. staff promptly on That knowledge of the of the contents accom committees bers signature at the bill and public, request, inform modate the provi- offenses, by the he is bound ing in various bills them status not, did of the law the law and that sions legislative process stages is mat effect, operate on an ex knowledge we common ter on first to basis as him. His convictions also the judicial is There notice.26 take degree burglary robbery are accord- occurs, frequently possibility, ingly proposes the President the action Affirmed. might in advance be learned on bill the instant appropriate inquiry. In case, transpired Judge (concurring): ROBB, six hours over Circuit agree in the result I concur Casson. amending offense committed statute the bill P.M., During period is no there of time 3:05 became Ry. Wigmore, ; Evidence IX 26. Atchison Etc. Co. v. United J. 1940). (3d 284 U.S. L.Ed. 273 ed. S.Ct. I it. President when the Part agree implication in do not appellant opinion, that the IV of unless amended

not bound knowledge of the contents avail- in fact enactment and of its my opinion him. able to supplemental opinion For see 434 certainly in the law; not so F.2d 427. dealing crime with a of a statute case burglary. think se, I malum in law, was, no- statutory enactment including affected, all tice of terms No- Merrill appellant. 3 M. tice, Nussbaum, Washington, Mr. Michael al., Mary Appellants, et DOE C., appellants. D. was on the for motion Miller, Mr. Gilbert C. Miss Caroline

GENERAL HOSPITAL DIS- Nickerson, Washington, OF the C.,D. also en- al., TRICT OF COLUMBIA et appearances appellants. tered for Appellees. Duncan, Corpora- Messrs. Charles T. No. 24011. Counsel, Pair, tion Principal Hubert B. Corporation Counsel, Asst. and Richard Appeals, United States Court of Sutton, District of Columbia W. Barton Circuit. and David P. Asst. Corporation oppo- Counsel, March appellees. sition to the motion BAZELON, Judge, Before Chief MaeKINNON, McGOWAN Circuit Judges, in chambers.

PER CURIAM: again This case is before us on a once question pertaining preliminary in- junctive Appellants Mary relief. Doe Roe, and Jane themselves others similarly situated, compel seek to D.C. Hospital grant General abortions to who women desire them who oth- erwise meet the standards admission hospital. themselves, For the in- appellants sought dividual pelling orders com- hospital provide them therapeutic abortions. hearing,

On March after findings the District Court made of fact

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Ronald L. Casson

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Mar 24, 1970

Citation: 434 F.2d 415

Docket Number: 22376, 22840

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.