United States v. Field
| Decision Date | 17 July 1951 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. FIELD. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Victor Rabinowitz and Mary M. Kaufman, New York City, for appellant.
Irving H. Saypol, U. S. Atty., New York City, for appellee; Roy M. Cohn, James B. Kilsheimer, III and John M. Foley, Assts. U. S. Atty., all of New York City, of counsel.
On July 6, 1951, an order was signed by me temporarily enlarging the applicant on bail, pending decision and determination of the said application after submission of the record. A transcript of the proceedings before the District Court and memoranda by counsel having been submitted, the application is now ripe for decision. The three points argued do not appear to me to raise any substantial question which would justify the granting of bail pending the appeal. Rule 46, Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 18 U.S.C.A.
The appellant's argument on the jurisdictional point rests upon a misunderstanding of the nature of bail in a criminal proceeding. The giving of security is not the full measure of the bail's obligation; it is hornbook law that the accused is delivered into the custody of the bail and the bail is bound to redeliver him so far as he can. It does not discharge the bail from that duty merely to abandon the security. The bail must assist in arresting the convict so far as possible; security is not a substitute.1 This being true the bail can have no constitutional privilege to conceal from the court all that he knows of the whereabouts of the convict and that necessarily includes an inquiry into his relation with him at the time when the security was posted. Rule 46(g) made no change in the old law; as the reviser's note says it is "a restatement of existing law and practice."
If it be argued that there may nevertheless be a "substantial question" about any of this, at least no doubt can extend to defendant's refusal to answer fully about the books of the Bail Fund of the Civil Rights Congress and to help towards their production. The claim of privilege against self-incrimination has no application to the contemnor's refusal to produce books held by him in a representative capacity.2
The claim that there was a technical failure to comply with Rule 42, F.R.Cr.P., if sustained, would result merely in a remand of the appellant for resentence, so that this defect, if it be one, is not prejudicial to the appellant. See United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 296-301, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884. Accordingly the application for bail is denied and the temporary bail allowed by my order of July 6th is hereby revoked and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Field
...to Chief Judge Swan for bail pending appeal, who eventually denied the application in a detailed opinion reported in United States v. Field, 2 Cir., 190 F.2d 554; and this was concurred in by Judge L. Hand in denying similar applications by Hammett and Hunton, United States v. Hunton et al.......
-
United States v. Spector
...admitted to bail, that he will not depart out of this territory without their assent." (Italics added.) See, also: United States v. Field, 2 Cir., 1951, 190 F.2d 554, 555; Longsdorf, Is Bail a Rich Man's Privilege? 7 F.R.D. 309, 1947. The teachings of experience continue to dictate complete......
-
United States v. Schneiderman, 21888
...when he is admitted to bail, that he will not depart out of this territory without their assent." See, also: United States v. Field, 2 Cir., 1951, 190 F.2d 554, 555; Longsdorf, Is Bail a Rich Man's Privilege? 1947, 7 F.R.D. 309. The teachings of experience continue to dictate complete denia......
-
United States v. Alker, 12313.
...of this aspect is reserved for discussion under appellant's fourth assignment of error. 10 Note 4, supra. 11 United States v. Field, 2 Cir., 1951, 190 F.2d 554. 12 Smith v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 147, 75 S.Ct. 194, 99 L.Ed. 13 The record of proceedings held before Frank Rogers Donahu......