Banks v. United States, 15559.
| Decision Date | 02 December 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 15559.,15559. |
| Citation | 249 F.2d 672 |
| Parties | Chester BANKS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Nathan Smith, San Francisco, Cal., Chester Banks, Alcatraz, Cal., in pro. per., for appellant.
Charles P. Moriarty, U. S. Atty., Murray B. Guterson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Before DENMAN, BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges.
Banks, not a lawyer, appeals propria persona from a denial of his motion in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding without a hearing and the denial of his motion for the transcript of the reporter's notes of the trial in which he was originally convicted. The court held the motions stated no cause of action.
Banks' motion alleges his facts in the formal motion itself and in two affidavits all filed the same day. One concerns Banks' entrapment by federal officers to purchase heroin with their money furnished him by them.
If these allegations be true they constitute an abuse of the court's criminal processes to procure a conviction of a man, who for at least five years had not been concerned with the illicit drug trade, who had no idea of purchasing any drug until urged by a federal government agent who supplied Banks with $70.00 to purchase it to relieve the suffering of a friend of the agent in all of which the agent used a group of persons working in common with the government to persuade Banks to engage in buying the drug with the $70.00 at no profit to Banks.
Nowhere are these facts contradicted and we are required to accept them as true.
As the Supreme Court has stated of the defense against such use of the court's process by entrapment to procure a conviction: "The defense is available, not in the view that the accused though guilty may go free, but that the government cannot be permitted to contend that he is guilty of a crime where the government officials are the instigators of his conduct." Emphasis added. Sorrells v. United States, 1932, 287 U.S. 435, at page 452, 53 S.Ct. 210, at page 216, 77 L.Ed. 413. Cf. 287 U.S. at page 457, 53 S.Ct. at page 218 of the succeeding opinion by Justice Roberts concurred in by Brandeis and Stone, stating that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. DeGraffenreid
...Supra fn. 17; Brubaker v. Dickson, Supra fn. 6; State ex rel. Kier v. Tahash (1967), 278 Minn. 427, 153 N.W.2d 222; Banks v. United States (C.A.9, 1957), 249 F.2d 672; Owsley v. Peyton (C.A.4, 1966), 368 F.2d 1002; United States ex rel. Jackson v. Myers (C.A.3, 1967), 374 F.2d 707; Commonwe......
-
Simmons v. United States, 13620.
...to his claim that the charges he now makes are cognizable under § 2255, appellant places much reliance upon Banks v. United States, 249 F.2d 672 (9 Cir. Dec. 2, 1957) and its interpretation of Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L. Ed. 413 (1932). It is true, as appell......
-
Johnston v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc.
...for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States." 5 Plaintiff has cited Banks v. United States, 249 F.2d 672 (9th Cir. 1957), for the proposition that entrapment is a denial of due process. But that Court categorically retreated from that position......
-
LeDent v. Wolff
...agreeing that a federal issue was presented. An examination of the cases reveals that in only one instance, Banks v. United States, 249 F.2d 672 (C.A. 9th Cir. 1958), has entrapment been held to raise a constitutional issue. In that case it was held that issues of entrapment should have bee......