Molinaro v. New Jersey, No. 663

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; DOUGLAS
Citation396 U.S. 365,24 L.Ed.2d 586,90 S.Ct. 498
Decision Date19 January 1970
Docket NumberNo. 663
PartiesCamillo MOLINARO, Appellant v. NEW JERSEY

396 U.S. 365
90 S.Ct. 498
24 L.Ed.2d 586
Camillo MOLINARO, Appellant

v.

NEW JERSEY.

No. 663.
Jan. 19, 1970.

Burrell Ives Humphreys, for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

This case comes to the Court on appeal from the New Jersey state courts, which have affirmed appellant Molinaro's conviction for abortion and conspiracy to commit abortion. We are informed by both appellant's counsel and counsel for the State that Molinaro, who was free on bail, has failed to surrender himself to state authorities. His bail has been revoked, and the State considers him a fugitive from justice. Under these circumstances we decline to adjudicate his case.

The Court has faced such a situation before, in Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97, 24 L.Ed. 32 (1876), and Bonahan v. Nebraska, 125 U.S. 692, 8 S.Ct. 1390, 31 L.Ed. 854 (1887). In each of those cases, which were before the Court on writs of error, the Court ordered the case removed from the docket upon receiving information that the plaintiff in error had escaped from custody. In Smith, the case was dismissed at the beginning of the following Term. See 18 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 427, 430 (1950). In Bonahan, the case was stricken from the docket on the last day of the Term in which it arose. See also National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards v. Arnold, 348 U.S. 37, 43, 75 S.Ct. 92, 95, 99 L.Ed. 46 (1954); Eisler v. United States, 338 U.S. 189 and 883, 69 S.Ct. 1453, 93 L.Ed. 1897 (1949); Allen v. Georgia, 166 U.S. 138, 17 S.Ct. 525, 41 L.Ed. 949

Page 366

(1897). No persuasive reason exists why this Court should proceed to adjudicate the merits of a criminal case after the convicted defendant who has sought review escapes from the restraints placed upon him pursuant to the conviction. While such an escape does not strip the case of its character as an adjudicable case or controversy, we believe it disentitles the defendant to call upon the resources of the Court for determination of his claims. In the absence of specific provision to the contrary in the statute under which Molinaro appeals, 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2), we conclude, in light of the Smith and Bonahan decisions, that the Court has the authority to dismiss the appeal on this ground. The dismissal need not await the end of the Term or the expiration of a fixed period of time, but should take place at this time.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS concurs in the result.

To continue reading

Request your trial
421 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Sotomayor, Nos. 1031
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 2 Febrero 1979
    ...he returned to federal custody within 30 days of the filing of said order, same being under the authority of Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970), and United States v. Sperling, 506 F.2d 1323, 1345, n. 33 (2d Cir. 1974). Sotomayor was not returned to fed......
  • Dorrough v. Estelle, No. 73-1881.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 29 Julio 1974
    ...to decide appeals of defendants who escape and refuse to submit to the control of the court below. See Molinaro v. New Jersey, 1970, 396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586; Bonahan v. Nebraska, 1887, 125 U.S. 692, 8 S.Ct. 1390, 31 L. Ed. 854; Smith v. United States, 1876, 94 U.S. (4 Ott......
  • Frank v. Yates, No. 1:11–CV–01175 LJO GSA HC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 7 Agosto 2012
    ...974 (7th Cir.2000.); see Ortega–Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 113 S.Ct. 1199, 122 L.Ed.2d 581 (1993); Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 366, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970); United States v. Awadalla, 357 F.3d 243 (2d Cir.2004.); Willis v. Mullins, 2009 WL 1657451 (E.D.C......
  • Polanski v. Superior Court, No. B217290.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 21 Diciembre 2009
    ...but "it disentitles the defendant to call upon the resources of the Court for determination of his claims." (Molinaro v. New Jersey (1970) 396 U.S. 365, 366 [24 L.Ed.2d 586, 90 S.Ct. 498].) A variety of justifications have been advanced in support of the fugitive disentitlement rule. One, o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
420 cases
  • U.S. v. Sotomayor, Nos. 1031
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 2 Febrero 1979
    ...he returned to federal custody within 30 days of the filing of said order, same being under the authority of Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970), and United States v. Sperling, 506 F.2d 1323, 1345, n. 33 (2d Cir. 1974). Sotomayor was not returned to fed......
  • Dorrough v. Estelle, No. 73-1881.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 29 Julio 1974
    ...to decide appeals of defendants who escape and refuse to submit to the control of the court below. See Molinaro v. New Jersey, 1970, 396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586; Bonahan v. Nebraska, 1887, 125 U.S. 692, 8 S.Ct. 1390, 31 L. Ed. 854; Smith v. United States, 1876, 94 U.S. (4 Ott......
  • Frank v. Yates, No. 1:11–CV–01175 LJO GSA HC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 7 Agosto 2012
    ...974 (7th Cir.2000.); see Ortega–Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 113 S.Ct. 1199, 122 L.Ed.2d 581 (1993); Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 366, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970); United States v. Awadalla, 357 F.3d 243 (2d Cir.2004.); Willis v. Mullins, 2009 WL 1657451 (E.D.C......
  • Polanski v. Superior Court, No. B217290.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 21 Diciembre 2009
    ...but "it disentitles the defendant to call upon the resources of the Court for determination of his claims." (Molinaro v. New Jersey (1970) 396 U.S. 365, 366 [24 L.Ed.2d 586, 90 S.Ct. 498].) A variety of justifications have been advanced in support of the fugitive disentitlement rule. One, o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • ELIMINATING THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE IN IMMIGRATION MATTERS.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 Nbr. 3, March 2022
    • 1 Marzo 2022
    ...(32) Id at 141. (33) See id. (34) See, e.g., Estelle v. Dorrough, 420 U.S. 534, 537 (1975) (per curiam). (35) Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 366 (1970) (per curiam) ("The dismissal need not await the end of the Term or the expiration of a fixed period of time, but should take place a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT