Blassingame v. United States, 15430.

• Decision Date: 14 March 1957
• Docket Number: No. 15430.,15430.
• Citation: Blassingame v. United States, 242 F.2d 313 (9th Cir. 1957)
• Parties: Sam BLASSINGAME, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

242 F.2d 313 (1957)

Sam BLASSINGAME, Appellant, v.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 15430.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

March 14, 1957.

Cornelius C. Chavelle, Seattle, Wash., for petitioner.

Charles P. Moriarty, U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., Richard H. Foster, San Francisco, Cal., and John A. Roberts, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Seattle, Wash., for respondent.

Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and BONE and BARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Blassingame, who was convicted in the District Court for the Western District of Washington, Northern Division, on two counts of a four-count indictment charging violation of the federal narcotics laws and sentenced to a total of ten years imprisonment, moves this court for admission to bail pending appeal.

The applicable provision of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is Rule 46(a)(2) which was amended in July, 1956, 18 U.S.C.A. to read in pertinent part as follows:

"Bail may be allowed pending appeal or certiorari unless it appears that the appeal is frivolous or taken for delay.Pending appeal to a court of appeals, bail may be allowed by the trial judge, by the court of appeals, or by any judge thereof, or by the circuit justice, to run until final termination of the proceedings in all courts * * *."

It is not necessary under the amended rule as it was under the prior rule that the appeal involve "a substantial question" in order to entitle the appellant to bail.Ward v. United States, 1956, 76 S.Ct. 1063, 1065, 1 L.Ed.2d 25.We are satisfied from the affidavit of appellant's counsel that the appeal is not frivolous and was not taken for delay.

It appears, however, that the district judge denied bail on quite another ground.The district judge had before him a confidential probation report which revealed, according to the judge's remarks at the hearing on appellant's motion for bail, that appellant is a highly unstable individual who has no family in the Seattle area, no visible means of support and no home or property.It also appeared that appellant had been most uncooperative with the probation officials in giving information about himself, and that he"had been well known to the narcotics officers for some period of time."The judge further noted that appellant apparently had ample funds to provide him with means for absconding.In view of these considerations the trial judge decided that a bail bond would not adequately protect against the possibility of appellant's flight pending appeal, and denied bail.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter, in denying bail under the amended rule where the...