Smith v. United States, 72-5455
| Decision Date | 11 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-5455,72-5455 |
| Citation | 34 L.Ed.2d 519,93 S.Ct. 566,409 U.S. 1066 |
| Parties | Austin Louis SMITH et al. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Petitioners were convicted of sexually assaulting a fellow inmate while incarcerated in the Federal Youth Center in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13 and 1963 Colo.Rev.Stat. § 40-2-31. Immediately following the assault, petitioners were placed in segregated confinement and were not arraigned until more than five months later, after an indictment had been returned. They appealed their convictions, in part on the ground that they had not been brought promptly before a United States Commissioner as required by Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.* The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that 'Rule 5 does not apply when the person affected is in custody pursuant to an unrelated valid conviction.' Accord, United States v. Reid, 437 F.2d 1166 (CA7 1971).
The result below stemmed from a narrow, technical reading of the word 'arrest' in Rule 5(a). Since petitioners 'were already in custody for unrelated convictions,' according to the Court of Appeals, they had not been 'arrested' for the alleged offense. The issue presented here is whether Rule 5(a) should be interpreted in this myopic fashion, without regard to the policies underlying Rule 5 as a whole.
Rule 5(b) requires the commissioner inter alia to A basic purpose of this rule is to interpose a judicial officer between the accused and the accuser early in the process of custodial interrogation. This procedure insures that the accused is objectively and intelligently apprised of his rights and helps prevent the 'utilization of intensive interrogation, easily gliding into the evils of 'the third degree." Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 453, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479. The Court of Appeals effectively has deprived petitioners of the protection afforded by Rule 5(b), even though there is no reason to believe that they were less vulnerable to the overbearing effects of custodial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gregg v. Georgia
... ... years since Furman, supra, was decided, Congress and at least 35 States have enacted new statutes providing for the death penalty. Pp. 179-183 ... United States, as amicus curiae ... Judgment of the ... generally throughout the state have imposed the death penalty"); Smith v. State, 236 Ga. 12, 24, 222 S.E.2d 308, 318 (1976) (found "a clear ... ...
-
Com. v. O'Neal
... ... Paul T. Smith, Boston, Mass., John Ackerman, Houston, Tex., and Melvin B. Lewis, ... 601, 610--611, 296 N.E.2d 468 (1973). See also Weems v. United ... Page 680 ... States, 217 U.S. 349, 368, 381, 30 S.Ct. 544, 54 ... ...
-
Sweet v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections
...Cruz v. Beto, supra; Jackson v. Bishop, supra; United States v. Smith (10th Cir. 1972) 464 F.2d 194, 196, cert. denied 409 U.S. 1066, 93 S.Ct. 566, 34 L.Ed.2d 519 (1972).6 Robinson v. California (1962) 370 U.S. 660, 675--78, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758, pet. for rehearing denied 371 U.S. 9......
-
United States v. McLemore
...cert. denied 426 U.S. 952, 96 S.Ct. 3177, 49 L.Ed.2d 1190; U. S. v. Smith, 464 F.2d 194 (10th Cir. 1972), cert. denied 409 U.S. 1066, 93 S.Ct. 566, 34 L.Ed.2d 519. This is so because the steps taken were designed not only to discipline the inmates but also to prevent further unrest in the g......