Brown v. Johnston, 9908.
| Decision Date | 26 March 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 9908.,9908. |
| Parties | BROWN et al. v. JOHNSTON. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Royce R. Brown and Tom C. Moffitt, in pro. per. for appellants.
Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., and R. B. McMillan and A. J. Zirpoli, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before MATHEWS, HANEY, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.
In the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas (hereafter called the Texas court), appellants, Royce R. Brown and Tom C. Moffitt, were indicted for violating § 1 of the Act of June 22, 1932, c. 271, 47 Stat. 326, as amended by the Act of May 18, 1934, c. 301, 48 Stat. 781, 18 U.S.C.A. § 408a.1 Appellants were arraigned, pleaded not guilty, were tried and convicted and, on February 25, 1937, were sentenced to be imprisoned for 25 years.
The United States penitentiary at Alcatraz, California, was designated as the place of appellants' confinement. While there confined and serving their sentences, appellants petitioned the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California (hereafter called the California court) for writs of habeas corpus. The writs were issued and served on appellee, James A. Johnston, warden of the penitentiary. Appellee made return of the writs and brought the bodies of appellants before the California court. A hearing was had, evidence was taken, findings of fact and conclusions of law were made and filed, and judgment was entered discharging the writs. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
In substance, appellants' petition stated that, in the Texas court, they (1) were denied (a) the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them, (b) the right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor and (c) the right to have the assistance of counsel for their defense; (2) were convicted by the use of perjured testimony; and (3) were denied (a) the right to appeal and (b) the right to have the assistance of counsel in perfecting an appeal.
The California court did not find that appellants were denied the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them, but found instead that they were arraigned and that the indictment was read to them in open court, thus, in effect, finding that appellants were not denied the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. This finding is amply supported by evidence and will not be disturbed.
Appellants say that a copy of the indictment and a list of the jurors and of the Government's witnesses should have been, but were not, delivered to appellants at least two days before the trial, citing § 1033 of the Revised Statutes, 18 U.S.C.A. § 5622; and they argue that the failure to deliver such a copy and list constituted a denial of their right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. The argument confuses two distinct rights — (1) the constitutional right of every accused person to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and (2) the statutory right created by § 1033. The statutory right extends only to persons accused of capital offenses. Appellants were not so accused; for, admittedly, the kidnaped person whom they transported in interstate commerce was liberated unharmed before they were indicted. Such a case is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Breslin
...245 F.2d 751; Thompson v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 160 F.2d 374, certiorari denied 331 U.S. 853, 67 S.Ct. 1738, 91 L.Ed. 1861; Brown v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 126 F.2d 727, certiorari denied 317 U.S. 627, 63 S.Ct. 39, 87 L.Ed. 507; Errington v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 110 F.2d 384, 127 A.L.R. 1467, certiora......
-
Hamer v. United States
...States v. Van Duzee, 1890, 140 U.S. 169, 11 S.Ct. 758, 35 L.Ed. 399; Scales v. United States, 4 Cir., 1955, 227 F.2d 581; Brown v. Johnson, 9 Cir., 1942, 126 F.2d 727; Spivey v. United States, 5 Cir., 1940, 100 F.2d 181, certiorari denied 310 U.S. 631, 60 S.Ct. 1079, 84 L.Ed. 1401; Wilson v......
-
Smith v. United States
...we think it crystal clear, not only upon the teachings of the cases cited by the district judge, to which may be added Brown v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 126 F.2d 727, and United States v. Parrino, 2 Cir., 203 F. 2d 284, which, though dealing with indictments instead of informations, decided the pr......
-
United States v. Crowell
...v. United States, 389 F.2d 911, 914-915 (9th Cir. 1968); Amsler v. United States, 381 F.2d 37, 44-45 (9th Cir. 1967); Brown v. Johnston, 126 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1942); United States v. Parker, 103 F.2d 857, 861-862 (9th Cir. 1939); Davis v. United States, 316 F.Supp. 913, 917 (E.D.Tenn.1970)......