U.S. v. Palmer, 76-3632
| Citation | 565 F.2d 1063 |
| Decision Date | 12 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-3632,76-3632 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Everett Alan PALMER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
William J. Bender, Asst. Federal Public Defender, argued, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellant.
Francis J. Diskin, Asst. U. S. Atty., argued, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Before MERRILL, DUNIWAY and CHOY, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, Palmer, was convicted of bank robbery. During the trial the government placed in evidence numerous items of the defendant's personal property, including a revolver and $763 in cash which had been seized at the time of his arrest. Defendant made a post-conviction motion for return of his property, excepting the revolver. That the court has jurisdiction was the holding of United States v. Wilson, 540 F.2d 1100 (D.C.Cir. 1976). 1
The government opposed the motion. It contended that since the property items had been received in evidence as government exhibits they should be returned to the government as the offering party. It was willing to waive its rights in this respect as to all items sought save the money. As to the money its opposition was firm: the court should avoid getting into a dispute over ownership or right to possession and return the exhibit to the offering party. The district court agreed and denied appellant's motion. This appeal followed. 2
The government makes no claim of ownership by virtue of forfeiture or otherwise. There was no evidence that the money was the property of the bank, although the government in brief and argument persists in referring to it as "bank loot." The bank that was the victim of the robbery made no third-party claim of ownership. Nor has it perfected any claim against the money as security for a civil judgment being sought in another forum.
Thus, no dispute as to ownership has been tendered to the court for resolution or interpleader. The guilty verdict did not, of course, carry with it any civil adjudication of liability to the victim bank in any specified amount. The only claim adverse to that of the defendant was the government's claim that as a short-cut to an obviously just solution it should be permitted to turn the money over to the victim bank and let defendant try to get it back from the bank. 3
While we wholeheartedly approve the proposition that victims of crime should have compensation from the criminal, we feel that even at the cost of judicial time it is preferable to accomplish this end through traditional judicial procedures rather than to leave it to the police, state or federal, to find nonjudicial ways and means by which to secure compensation from the criminal. Accordingly, we reject any claim of the United States to possession of the money for such purpose.
The United States asserts that local Rule CR 79(g) of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington provides that exhibits should be returned to the party offering them in evidence at the conclusion of a trial and when there is no further judicial need for them. The rule does not so provide. 4 The offering party is never mentioned. The rule deals with the circumstances under which copies of exhibits can be substituted for the originals (which the court will then order "returned to the party to whom they belong"), and rather ambiguously authorizes the clerk of court at the appropriate time, without court order, to return exhibits "to the respective parties or their counsel."
We conclude that in absence of any cognizable claim of ownership or right to possession adverse to that of appellant, the district court should have granted appellant's motion and returned to him the money taken from him by government seizure.
The order appealed from is vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. Should other claims to the money have surfaced by the time the district court takes action on our remand they must, of course, be dealt with. However, in absence of any claim other than that of the United States here discussed the motion of appellant must be granted and the money returned to him.
1 As its footnote 4, page 1103, the court in Wilson quotes The American Law Institute Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure, § SS 280.3 (1975), to the following effect:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Totaro v. Lyons, Civ. A. No. M-79-2017.
...128 (1976), the disposal of property to a third party, absent any valid reason other than "short cut justice", U.S. v. Palmer, 565 F.2d 1063, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 1977), is an action by an Assistant United States Attorney which may go beyond the scope of his authority. The court has held that ......
-
Matthews v. US
...States v. Wilson, 540 F.2d 1100, 1103 (D.C.Cir.1976); United States v. LaFatch, 565 F.2d 81, 83 (6th Cir. 1977); United States v. Palmer, 565 F.2d 1063, 1064 (9th Cir.1977)); United States v. Woodall, 12 F.3d at 794; United States v. Brant, 684 F.Supp. 421, 424-26 (M.D.N.C. 1988); see infra......
-
U.S. v. Hubbard
...at 1103-1104. Accord, United States v. Wright, 610 F.2d at 935; United States v. Farrell, 606 F.2d at 1343, 1347; United States v. Palmer, 565 F.2d 1063, 1065 (9th Cir. 1977); United States v. LaFatch, 565 F.2d 81, 83 (6th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 971, 98 S.Ct. 1611, 56 L.Ed.2d 62......
-
U.S. v. Van Cauwenberghe
...establishes a claim to seized property might defeat a defendant's Rule 41(e) motion for the property's return. See United States v. Palmer, 565 F.2d 1063, 1065 (9th Cir.1977) (Rule 41(e) motion should have been granted given "absence of any cognizable claim of ownership or right to possessi......