Andrade v. United States
| Decision Date | 03 January 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 4880.,4880. |
| Parties | ANDRADE v. UNITED STATES et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Will C. Austin, Charles L. Morgan, and W. E. Allen, all of Fort Worth, Tex. (Charles L. Morgan and Goree, Odell & Allen, all of Fort Worth, Tex., on the brief), for appellant.
Henry Zweifel, U. S. Atty., of Fort Worth, Tex. (Morrow H. Boynton, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Ballinger, Tex., on the brief), for appellees.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus sued out by the appellant and granting a petition for an order for his removal to the Southern district of California, to answer an indictment found in that district which charged that he, for the purpose of executing an alleged scheme to defraud, unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously caused to be delivered in that district by mail described letters according to the direction thereon, which letters the accused had placed and caused to be placed in the United States post office at Fort Worth, Tex.
The order is complained of on the grounds: (1) That appellant was not subject to be indicted in the Southern district of California and tried there for the crime charged in the indictment; and (2) that as appellant resides at Fort Worth, Tex., and his uncontradicted testimony showed that he is financially unable to procure the attendance in California of witnesses residing in Texas and Arkansas, whose testimony is necessary to his defense, the order for his removal to California for trial there was violative of his rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
A charge under section 215 of the Criminal Code (Comp. St. § 10385) of knowingly causing a letter to be delivered by mail according to the direction thereon for the purpose of executing an alleged scheme to defraud may be made and tried in the district of the delivery, as well as that of the deposit of the letter. Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U. S. 224, 44 S. Ct. 519, 68 L. Ed. 989. It follows that the first-mentioned ground on which the order appealed from is challenged is not a tenable one.
Neither the Fifth Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution entitles one to be tried for a criminal offense in the district where he resides. Under section 42 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1024) a criminal offense begun in one district and completed in another is cognizable in either, and the statute (R....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Anderson
...U.S. 273, 65 S.Ct. 249, 89 L.Ed. 236. 13 Cf. Haas v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462, 30 S.Ct. 249, 54 L.Ed. 569, 17 Ann.Cas. 1112; Andrade v. United States, 5 Cir., 16 F.2d 776; United States v. Jordan, D.C., 22 F.2d 702; United States v. Mayer, D.C., 22 F.2d 827. 14 Compare the cases holding that wh......
- Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Dillon
-
United States v. Moore, 34.
...C., 6 F.2d 149. The case of United States v. Andrade, D. C., 10 F.2d 572, was before the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 16 F.2d 776, on a petition for an order of removal and application for discharge on habeas corpus. The following language from the case of United States v......
-
United States v. Hagan
...v. United States, 143 U.S. 207, 12 S.Ct. 407, 36 L.Ed. 126; In re Palliser, 136 U.S. 257, 10 S.Ct. 1034, 34 L.Ed. 514; United States v. Andrade, 5 Cir., 16 F.2d 776; Hart v. United States, 9 Cir., 11 F.2d See also 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure (Criminal), §§ 302, 303. In the pres......