Bistram v. United States, 15745.
Citation | 248 F.2d 343 |
Decision Date | 16 October 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 15745.,15745. |
Parties | Carl Harvey BISTRAM, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Carl Harvey Bistram, pro se.
Robert Vogel, U. S. Atty., Fargo, N. D., for appellee.
Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, and JOHNSEN and VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judges.
This case is before us for the second time. Appellant, his brother, Arthur Earl Bistram, and another were indicted for the crime of kidnapping as defined by Section 1201(a), Title 18, U.S.C. Each of the defendants entered a plea of guilty. Thereafter Carl Harvey Bistram, appellant herein, filed a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment on the ground that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction in that the indictment failed to negative an exception contained in Section 1201(a), Title 18, U.S.C. This motion the trial court overruled and appellant again filed a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment on the ground that his plea of guilty was coerced and obtained by threats and promises. This motion was likewise overruled by the trial court. On appeal we sustained the trial court in overruling the first of these motions but held that on the second motion the appellant was entitled to a hearing and we reversed and remanded the case for that purpose. Bistram v. United States, 8 Cir., 237 F.2d 243.
Subsequent to the remand of the case to the District Court appellant applied to the court for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. On his application the District Court issued the writ directed to the warden of the United States Penitentiary at Alcatraz, California, pursuant to which appellant was returned to the District of North Dakota on or about December 1, 1956. At that time he was represented by counsel of his own choice and on December 11, 1956, the court heard a motion by appellant for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum directed to the warden of the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, to produce his brother, Arthur Earl Bistram, as a witness at the hearing to be held on December 18, 1956. The court denied his application for such writ. Thereafter the deposition of the witness Arthur Earl Bistram was taken at Leavenworth, Kansas, and in the taking of the deposition appellant was represented by counsel of his own choice and the deposition was offered in evidence in support of appellant's motion and became a part of the original record in this case. Subsequent to the taking of this deposition and before the hearing on his motion to vacate and set aside the judgment of conviction appellant filed a motion to retake the deposition of Arthur Earl Bistram, which motion the court denied. Hearing on the motion to vacate and set aside the judgment of conviction was had on January 7, 1957, at which hearing appellant personally testified, was represented by counsel and offered the deposition of his brother and the testimony of his former attorney, following which hearing the court made and entered the following, among other, findings:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Soblen
...Bark Yau v. United States, 33 F.2d 236 (9 Cir., 1929); United States v. Hofmann, 24 F.Supp. 847 (S.D.N.Y.) 1938; Bistram v. United States, 248 F.2d 343 (8 Cir., 1957). In other cases, the motion to take a deposition was denied. Tom Ung Chai v. Burnett, 25 F.2d 574 (9 Cir., 1928); United Sta......
-
Feguer v. United States
...Bandy v. United States, 8 Cir., 1961, 296 F.2d 882, 892, cert. den. 369 U.S. 831, 82 S.Ct. 849, 7 L.Ed.2d 796; and Bistram v. United States, 8 Cir., 1957, 248 F.2d 343, 347. In view of the responsible and supervisory status which Dr. Stamm held with respect to the defendant on the two occas......
-
Bistram v. United States
...hearing this Court again entered its order denying the petitioner's motion, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Bistram v. United States, 248 F.2d 343. On February 7, 1959, almost ten years after the petitioner was convicted and sentenced upon his plea of guilty, he filed a th......
-
Bistram v. People of State of Minnesota, 17468.
...unworthy of belief". The motion was again denied. Carl asserted procedural errors and appealed. This court affirmed. Bistram v. United States, 248 F.2d 343 (8 Cir. 1957). 3. Meanwhile, Arthur had filed his § 2255 motion asserting lack of jurisdiction, deprival of constitutional rights, impr......