U.S. v. Ruiz, 75-3249
| Decision Date | 18 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-3249,75-3249 |
| Citation | 533 F.2d 939 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Joseph Mincberg, Miami Beach, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Joel C. Fanning, Stephen M. Pave, Asst. U. S. Attys., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before DYER, SIMPSON and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
Ruiz appeals his heroin conviction contending that the refusal of the district court to grant a continuance and counsel's motion for leave to withdraw, was a denial of due process and rendered the trial fundamentally unfair. We affirm.
Ruiz was indicted and arraigned about four months prior to trial. Thereafter, three months prior to trial, his counsel, Estrumsa, was arrested on a fugitive warrant arising out of a bribery charge in New York. Because of this development the district court granted one continuance two months before trial. During the course of Ruiz' trial Estrumsa was again arrested on a state of Florida Governor's warrant and placed in custody as the first step in his extradition proceedings. He was released, however, so that he could continue his representation of Ruiz. Estrumsa informed the court that he could not proceed because he was in a state of "emotional shambles." The trial, at this point, had been substantially completed. All that remained was Estrumsa's cross-examination of a government witness and closing arguments. As the district court noted, no more than an hour and a half was necessary to complete the trial and send the case to the jury. The case was not complex; it primarily involved the credibility of a government informer. Moreover, Estrumsa had known about his personal problems for three months, yet took no steps to obtain replacement counsel because Ruiz wanted Estrumsa to continue to represent him. The district court refused to grant a continuance or to allow Estrumsa to withdraw as counsel.
We can find no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to continue with and complete the trial. Estrumsa offered no medical reports concerning his condition, proffered no corroborative testimony or affidavits, and did not request a hearing concerning his condition. He offered only his own unsupported statement that he was too emotionally upset to continue with the trial. It is elementary that
(t)he matter of continuance is traditionally within the discretion of the trial judge, and it is not every denial of a request for more time that violates due...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Burton
...348 F.2d at 794-795.40 See cases cited Supra note 29.41 See notes 51-52, 55 Infra and accompanying text.42 Compare United States v. Ruiz, 533 F.2d 939, 940 (5th Cir.), Cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1002, 97 S.Ct. 532, 50 L.Ed.2d 613 (1976) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing both......
-
U.S. v. Albert, s. 76-2560
...84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964); U. S. v. Sahley, 526 F.2d 913 (CA5, 1976); U. S. v. Gidley,527 F.2d 1345 (CA5, 1976); U. S. v. Ruiz, 533 F.2d 939 (CA5, 1976), and will be disturbed on appeal only on a clear showing of abuse of discretion by the trial court, E. g., U. S. v. Moriarity, 4......
-
Mitchell v. State
...84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1946); U.S. v. Sahley, 526 F.2d 913 (CA5, 1976); U.S. v. Gidley, 527 F.2d 1345 (CA5, 1976); U.S. v. Ruiz, 533 F.2d 939 (CA5, 1976), and will be disturbed on appeal only on a clear showing of abuse of discretion by the trial court, e.g., U.S. v. Moriarity, [Mori......
-
U.S. v. Ruiz
...1086 540 F.2d 1086 U. S. v. Ruiz No. 75-3249 United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit 9/21/76 S.D.Fla., 533 F.2d 939 ...