United States v. Hammond, 390. Docket 29840.
| Decision Date | 11 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 390. Docket 29840.,390. Docket 29840. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert HAMMOND and Robert Lewis, Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
David A. Luttinger, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., for the Southern District of New York, and Hugh C. Humphreys, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, on the brief), for appellee.
Thomas J. Mazza, New York City, for appellants.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and WATERMAN and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.
We affirm in open court the convictions for violation of the narcotics laws, 21 U.S.C. §§ 173, 174, entered after a jury trial on May 21, 1965. Appellants argue that the fifteen-month delay between the offense and their arrest violated due process because it was an unnecessary delay which prejudiced their ability to recollect the events in question. Although appellants raised this question at trial the government was prevented from offering any explanation of the delay by defense counsel's successful objection to such explanatory testimony. We adhere to our decision in United States v. Wilson, 2 Cir., 342 F.2d 782, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 860, 86 S.Ct. 119, 15 L.Ed.2d 98 (1965), that such a delay, in the absence of any other circumstances, does not violate any right of the accused. Ross v. United States, 349 F.2d 210 (D.C.Cir.1965), cited by appellants and decided subsequent to our decisions, does not persuade us to the contrary.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Marion 8212 19
...denied, 380 U.S. 983, 85 S.Ct. 1352, 14 L.Ed.2d 276 (1965); United States v. Holiday, 319 F.2d 775, 776 (CA2 1963); United States v. Hammond, 360 F.2d 688, 689 (CA2 1966); United States v. Dickerson, 347 F.2d 783, 784 (CA2 1965); United States v. Rivera, 346 F.2d 942, 943 (CA2 1965); United......
-
United States v. Curry
...v. United States, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 330, 365 F.2d 521 (1966); United States v. Sanchez, 361 F.2d 824 (2d Cir. 1966); United States v. Hammond, 360 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1966); Bey v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 337, 350 F.2d 467 (1965); Roy v. United States, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 32, 356 F.2d 785......
-
State v. Roundtree
...States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 413, 395 F.2d 636, 638 (1968); Woody v. United States, Supra, 370 F.2d at 218 and at 219; United States v. Hammond, 360 F.2d 688, 689 (2 Cir.), cert. den. 385 U.S. 918, 87 S.Ct. 227, 17 L.Ed.2d 142 (1966); Powell v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 229, 352 F.2d 705,......
-
Benson v. United States
...806; United States v. Wilson, 2 Cir., 1965, 342 F.2d 782, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 860, 86 S.Ct. 119, 15 L.Ed.2d 98; United States v. Hammond, 2 Cir., 1966, 360 F.2d 688, 689. 9 Collins v. United States, 9 Cir., 1946, 157 F.2d 409, 410; United States v. Bennett, 2 Cir., 1966, 364 F.2d 499; Un......