United States v. Honeyman, 72-2892.

Citation470 F.2d 473
Decision Date27 November 1972
Docket NumberNo. 72-2892.,72-2892.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric HONEYMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Michael H. Metzger, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

James L. Browning, Jr., U.S. Atty., James Ritchie, Maurice K. Merten, Sp. Attys., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before MERRILL, DUNIWAY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3147(b) from an order of the District Judge refusing to modify an order fixing the appellant's bail pending a trial of a criminal case against him at $50,000 cash or corporate security bond. The appellant is now at large under an order of this court directing that he be released upon a personal bond of $50,000, with a cash deposit of $5,000.

Honeyman was indicted, along with his brother and others, under a charge of violating 21 U.S.C. § 176a, importing and conspiring to import marijuana. He was released under a personal bond of $10,000 with a 10% deposit in cash. Before trial of the case his brother and one of his co-defendants became fugitives. Honeyman, however, did not. He made all appearances required of him in that case and on one occasion he was permitted to travel to Mexico, which he did, returning to stand trial. The case was tried and Honeyman was acquitted on two of the three counts charged and there was a hung jury on the third count.

In October of 1972 Honeyman learned that the grand jury was investigating a charge that he had committed perjury during his trial. A retrial of the conspiracy count was still pending and Honeyman was nevertheless granted permission to travel to Kansas, which he did, returning on schedule. When he returned he was arrested on October 31, 1972, under an indictment charging him with perjury in the course of his trial. He has never violated any conditions of his release and has obeyed every order of the court. On November 1, 1972 the remaining count of the indictment under 21 U.S.C. § 176a was dismissed. The possible sentence under section 176a is a minimum of five years and a maximum of twenty years. The possible sentence under the perjury indictment is a maximum of five years, with no minimum.

Honeyman is an alien, a British subject, admitted permanently to this country in 1961. For approximately ten years he has lived in the San Francisco Bay Area and has been steadily employed. He has a wife and no children. He owns a home in Martinez, California, which is not subject to any mortgage and which he values at $14,000. He owns real property in Berkeley, California which is subject to a mortgage, with an equity of approximately $9,000. Honeyman is a twin brother of Alistair Honeyman, who was charged with him in the case in which Honeyman was acquitted and who is a fugitive. Honeyman testified that they are very close. The government asserts that it has a strong case against Honeyman on the perjury charge, and for the purpose of this opinion we assume that that is so.

The trial judge, in refusing to modify his order fixing bail, relied upon the following considerations: The charge of perjury is a substantial one and the United States Attorney has assured the court that the weight of the evidence against Honeyman is substantial. Honeyman is an alien, with ready access to travel documents which would permit his departure from the United States. Honeyman has made frequent trips out of the United States in the past. His only substantial tie in the United States is his wife, who has made frequent trips outside the United States with him. His twin is presently a fugitive. The second defendant in the same case is presently a fugitive. In addition to the foregoing considerations, which are embodied in the court's written order, the trial judge, after hearing, indicated that he believed that a corporate surety bond should be required because the surety would help the government in preventing Honeyman from becoming a fugitive and in apprehending him if he should become a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • U.S. v. Motamedi
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • August 8, 1985
    ...a noncapital offense shall be admitted to bail. Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4, 72 S.Ct. 1, 3, 96 L.Ed. 1 (1951); United States v. Honeyman, 470 F.2d 473, 474 (9th Cir.1972). Only in rare circumstances should release be denied. Sellers v. United States, 89 S.Ct. 36, 38, 21 L.Ed.2d 64 (1968) ......
  • U.S. v. Ward, SACR 99-77 GLT.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • July 12, 1999
    ...the evidence is the least important factor set forth in Section 3142(g) of the 1984 Act. However, Motamedi cites United States v. Honeyman, 470 F.2d 473, 474 (9th Cir.1972), as its sole authority for this proposition. Honeyman is a pre-1984 Act case where the Honeyman panel opined, without ......
  • U.S. v. Barnett, CRIM. 97-60033.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Louisiana
    • September 17, 1997
    ...1408 (9th Cir.1985). In the Ninth Circuit, the weight of the evidence is the least important of the factors. Id; United States v. Honeyman, 470 F.2d 473, 474 (9th Cir.1972); United States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118 (9th Cir.1991). See also United States v. Edson, 487 F.2d 370, 372 (1st C. Pres......
  • United States v. Martin
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • June 10, 2014
    ...has instructed that the weight of the evidence is the least important factor. Motamedi, 767 F.2dPage 14at 1407; United States v. Honeyman, 470 F.2d 473, 474 (9th Cir. 1972). The strength of the Government's case against the Defendants is "overwhelming," as Government's counsel correctly lab......
  • 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