Read v. United States

Citation361 F.2d 830
Decision Date13 June 1966
Docket NumberNo. 8480,8481.,8480
PartiesGerald Leroy READ, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Richard Leroy WOLD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)

William V. Crank, Wichita, Kan., for appellants.

John W. Raley, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. (B. Andrew Potter, U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Before LEWIS, BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.

HILL, Circuit Judge.

Appellants were tried and convicted by a jury of escape from custody, 18 U.S.C. § 751, and have appealed. The pivotal issue is whether or not they were in "custody" within the meaning of that term under the statute.

The facts are not in dispute. Appellants were prisoners in the federal reformatory at El Reno, Oklahoma. On March 20, 1965, they were taken, together with seventeen other inmates, to Oklahoma City for participation in a speech contest. They were escorted by four employees of the reformatory who were unarmed. The speech contest was held in a cafeteria and the appellants were allowed to move about freely in the room. Restrooms were located outside the room where the contest was being held and the appellants were allowed to visit the restroom without accompaniment of the reformatory employees. Down the hall from the restrooms was a door which was not guarded. At a recess from the contest, the appellants departed through this door and did not return. According to the reformatory employees, they were told they could visit the restrooms but not to leave the building. The employees said they made periodic checks of the inmates throughout the program and that one of the employees was stationed in the bus at the front of the building to observe the door.

It is true here the prisoners were accorded wide latitude of movement. Security measures were relaxed to enable the prisoners to participate in the activities. Nevertheless, the appellants were committed to the custody of the reformatory employees who never abandoned them. One employee was in the bus at the front of the building to watch there and the other three were in the building with the prisoners making periodic checks. The prisoners, including both appellants, were only instructed that they might visit the restrooms but not to leave the building. A person may still be in custody even though not under constant supervision by guards, so long as some restraint remains upon complete freedom. See Tucker v. United States, 9 Cir., 251 F.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • U.S. v. Bailey
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 19 Octubre 1978
    ...439 F.2d 1074 (6th Cir. 1971) (prisoner on work release); Chandler v. United States, supra note 13, 378 F.2d at 908; Read v. United States, 361 F.2d 830 (10th Cir. 1966) (prisoner at recreation away from institution); Frazier v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 246, 339 F.2d 745 (1964) (pris......
  • U.S. v. Eaglin
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 10 Agosto 1977
    ...144 U.S.App.D.C. 316, 446 F.2d 1317 (1971); United States v. Rudinsky, 439 F.2d 1074, 1076-77 (6th Cir. 1971); Read v. United States, 361 F.2d 830 (10th Cir. 1966). There is no reason to think that "escape" and "custody" would be defined differently by Congress in the context of punishing t......
  • United States v. Leonard, 73-1769.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 6 Junio 1974
    ...United States v. Hollen, 393 F.2d 479 (4th Cir. 1968)12 McCullough v. United States, 369 F.2d 548 (8th Cir. 1966)13; Read v. United States, 361 F.2d 830 (10th Cir. 1966)14; Nace v. United States, 334 F. 2d 235, 236 (8th Cir. 1964)15; Tucker v. United States, 251 F.2d 794 (9th Cir. 1958)16; ......
  • State v. Holbrook
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • 8 Abril 1974
    ...against each defendant, Holbrook and Merritt, respectively, sufficiently charges a violation of Section 710. Cf.: Read v. United States, 361 F.2d 830 (10th Cir. 1966); Frazier v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 246, 339 F.2d 745 (1964); People v. Labrum, 25 Cal.App.3d 105, 101 Cal.Rptr. 602......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT