Flynn v. United States
| Decision Date | 31 January 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 14234.,14234. |
| Citation | 217 F.2d 29 |
| Parties | Harry James FLYNN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Harry J. Flynn, appellant, in propria persona.
Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Louis Lee Abbott, Manuel L. Real, Manley J. Bowler, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, FEE, and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied January 31, 1955. See 75 S.Ct. 344.
Flynn was indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a car which he knew to be stolen.1 He was tried without a jury and by the Court found guilty as charged on February 25, 1953. The Court ordered reference to the Probation Officer and a psychiatrist. Based upon the report of the latter the Trial Court found on March 23, 1953, that "defendant was mentally incompetent at time of trial and conviction" and unable to understand the proceedings against him or properly to assist in his own defense, and ordered "that judgment heretofore pronounced is vacated and a new trial is granted." Flynn was committed to the custody of the A motion to vacate the indictment, two motions to dismiss the indictment and a petition for habeas corpus were filed by counsel other than the one who took part in the first proceeding. The motions were denied. The Court ordered an examination by a different doctor and, apparently being satisfied of the present mental condition of defendant, on November 30, 1953, denied the application for a writ of habeas corpus and thereupon the case again came for trial before a jury. The Government presented evidence as to the commission of the offense and as to the mental condition of the defendant, and the defense introduced records and testimony as to the latter. The jury found a general verdict of guilty and a special verdict that defendant was sane during all the period of the commission of the offense. The Court pronounced sentence.
There is no defect in this case. The theory of counsel is that appellant has been placed in double jeopardy. But the Trial Court found Flynn was incompetent on his first trial and vacated the judgment of conviction. This formal act was proper and fit, but it was not a necessity. The proceeding was absolutely void and every court would hold it so. The statutes and rules of procedure cannot give vitality to a judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Crawford, 84-428
...proceeding, the finding of not guilty by reason of insanity and the judgment entered thereon were "absolutely void." Flynn v. United States, 217 F.2d 29, 30 (9th Cir.1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 930, 75 S.Ct. 344, 99 L.Ed. 729, petition for reh'g and motion to vacate dismissed, 222 F.2d 54......
-
Rowe v. State
...not in the sense of a 'fair' trial, which is the basic element of the due process guaranteed by the Constitution.' In Flynn v. United States, 217 F.2d 29 (9th Cir.1954), cert. den. 348 U.S. 930, 75 S.Ct. 344, 99 L.Ed. 729 (1955), reh. den. 222 F.2d 541 (1955), it was said (at p. 30) that 'i......
-
State v. Michael A. Naylor
...is best suited to his condition." (Emphasis added). APPENDIX 2 In rejecting the accused's plea of former jeopardy, the court in Flynn v. United States, supra, "There is no defect in this case. The theory of counsel is that appellant has been placed in double jeopardy. But the Trial Court fo......
-
Bell v. State
...by the court.' Vol. 1, Wharton's Criminal Law, supra, page 334, § 142. As authority for this statement the author cites Flynn v. United States (C.A.9th) 217 F.2d 29, and certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States in 348 U.S. 930, 75 S.Ct. 344, 99 L.Ed. 729, and a rehear......