United States v. Gunther
| Decision Date | 19 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 14320.,14320. |
| Citation | 104 US App. DC 16,259 F.2d 173 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Kenneth H. GUNTHER, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. John W. Warner, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Mr. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Mr. Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Vernon L. Wilkinson, Washington, D.C. (appointed by this Court) for appellee.
Before PRETTYMAN, BAZELON and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal by the United States from an order of the District Court dismissing an indictment against Gunther for lack of a speedy trial; technically, under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., because of unnecessary delay in bringing the defendant to trial. In almost every month from March, 1952, when the indictment was brought, until the present time, either Gunther or the United States has appeared before the courts of this jurisdiction in regard to this case. There have been over thirty motions filed in it; this court has heard three appeals and remanded twice to the District Court for further proceedings. Gunther himself has been the subject of four hearings to determine his competence to stand trial, and altogether nine attorneys have been appointed in his behalf.
Gunther was tried in 1953 and found guilty of rape. At that time his defenses were (1) consent and (2) insanity. Sentence of three to nine years' imprisonment was imposed. This court reversed the conviction on July 1, 1954.1 He has spent approximately six years either in jail or in a mental hospital. The Government argues that the record will not support a finding of prejudice as a result of the passage of time and that, therefore, the District Court abused its discretion. We think the dismissal was justified by the circumstances.
The Government urges that the administration of justice would be unwarrantably and invalidly thwarted if a rule were to be established that an indicted person can secure dismissal of his indictment upon a delay in trial without making some showing of prejudice. It supports this contention with an exhaustive and scholarly brief. But we do not reach that question. We do not hold or mean to intimate that, generally speaking, motions to dismiss for delay are to be granted in the absence of a showing of prejudice. We decide this case on its own facts, which, as the recitation of them shows, are unusual. Gunther has had one trial on this indictment and has been in custody almost the maximum of the term imposed upon him at that time. The case has been almost continuously in the courts, but a second trial has never been held. His conviction having been reversed, he was entitled to a new trial as reasonably soon as circumstances would permit. We need not recite the many...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wong
...McWilliams, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 163 F.2d 695 (D.C. Cir.), Petition of Provoo, supra, 17 F.R.D. 183 (D.Md.), United States v. Gunther, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 259 F.2d 173 (D.C. Cir.), and Williams v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 51, 250 F.2d 19 (D.C. Cir.), in effect sustains this fifth gr......
-
Mann v. United States
...dismissing for want of prosecution, the consistent assumption has been that they are appealable. See, e. g., United States v. Gunther, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 259 F.2d 173; United States v. McWilliams, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 163 F.2d 2 The rule that one who fails to ask for a prompt trial waives......
-
United States v. Shelton
...unnecessary delay in bringing about the new trial and whether the accused could now have a fair trial." United States v. Gunther, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 17, 259 F.2d 173, 174 (1958). (Emphasis added). Where there has been a "substantial" or "extraordinary delay," the Government, to sustain it......
-
District of Columbia v. Weams
...proceeding for an unduly prolonged lack of prosecution and such dismissal presents an appealable order. United States v. Gunther, 104 U.S. App.D.C. 16, 17, 259 F.2d 173, 174 (1958). On the other hand, once a nolle prosequi has been entered by the prosecuting officer in the District of Colum......