United States v. Vaughn, 24084.

Decision Date25 May 1971
Docket NumberNo. 24084.,24084.
Citation446 F.2d 1317,144 US App. DC 316
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. Morris W. VAUGHN, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. Robert W. Healy, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. James A. Koerner, Washington, D. C. (both appointed by this court), was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Michael J. Madigan, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Thomas A. Flannery, U. S. Atty., and John A. Terry, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before McGOWAN and TAMM, Circuit Judges, and DAVIES,* United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota.

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal from a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a), the so called federal escape law, the only question raised is that of whether that statute is applicable. Appellant, while awaiting trial for robbery, was by order of the court permitted to participate in the work release program. This meant that he was released from the D.C. Jail for a few hours each day for the purpose of working for a private employer. Failing to return to the jail one day, appellant was apprehended two months later on another charge of robbery.

Appellant argues that, at the time he failed to return to the jail, he was not in the custody of the Attorney General within the meaning of Section 751(a).1 He points out that his participation in the work release program was under the authority of the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a) (5), which provides that the court may grant pretrial release upon conditions, "including a condition requiring that a person return to custody after specified hours." (Emphasis supplied.) Appellant further insists that, since the Bail Reform Act has its own penal provisions, 18 U.S.C. § 3150, Congress is to be taken as intending those to be, apart from contempt, the exclusive source of sanctions for violating a conditional release under that statute.

We are not persuaded of the validity of these contentions, either alone or in combination. The Congressional response in 1965 to a decision holding that an escape from a halfway house was not covered by Section 751(a) is very significant for present purposes. In order to nullify the ruling in United States v. Person, 223 F.Supp. 982 (S.D. Cal.1963), Congress amended 18 U.S.C. § 4082 to provide as follows:

The willful failure of a prisoner to remain within the extended limits of his confinement, or to return within the time prescribed to an institution or facility designated by the Attorney General, shall be deemed an escape from the custody of the Attorney General punishable as provided in Section 751(a).

The penal provisions of the Bail Reform Act are couched in terms of a default in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • U.S. v. Eaglin
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • August 10, 1977
    ...States, 157 F.2d 588, 589-90 (9th Cir. 1946), cert. denied, 331 U.S. 813, 67 S.Ct. 1197, 91 L.Ed. 1832 (1947); United States v. Vaughan, 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 C......
  • Moreland v. U.S.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • June 30, 1992
    ...A.2d 373 (D.C.1980) (defendant in pretrial detention at halfway house subject to escape charges under 18 U.S.C. 751); United States v. Vaughn, 446 F.2d 1317 (D.C.Cir.1971) (pretrial detainee who participated in work-release program under authority of Bail Reform Act and escaped held subject......
  • U.S. v. Thomas
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 16, 2004
    ...confinement"); Thurston v. United States, 779 A.2d 260, 263 (D.C.2001) (same under D.C.Code § 22-2601(a)). 9. See United States v. Vaughn, 446 F.2d 1317, 1318 (D.C.Cir.1971); Thurston, 779 A.2d at 262 n. 4; Gonzalez v. United States, 498 A.2d 1172, 1174 (D.C.1985); see also Bailey, 444 U.S.......
  • U.S. v. Rosa-Ortiz
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • October 28, 2003
    ...had been released under § 3142, he would no longer have been in federal custody for purposes of § 751. See United States v. Vaughn, 446 F.2d 1317 (D.C.Cir.1971) (defendant who fled while on pretrial release was validly convicted of escape); United States v. Keller, 912 F.2d 1058, 1059-61 (9......
  • 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