United States v. Hunter, Crim. No. 2008-68
Decision Date | 19 November 1974 |
Docket Number | 800-71,904-72 and 981-73.,Crim. No. 2008-68 |
Citation | 385 F. Supp. 358 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Raymond HUNTER, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America, v. Albert RAYMOND, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America, v. William DeLOACH, Sr., Defendant. UNITED STATES of America, v. Linda F. EWING, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
James A. Treanor, III, Washington, D. C., for DeLoach.
Matthew W. Black, Jr., Washington, D. C., for Hunter.
Since enactment of the Criminal Justice Act, I have taken the position that the amount of compensation awarded appointed counsel in a case which warrants a fee in excess of the statutory limit should not ordinarily be computed at maximum statutory rates. E.g., United States v. Thompson, 361 F.Supp. 879, 886-887 (D.D.C.1973); United States v. Harper, 311 F.Supp. 1072, 1073 (D.D.C. 1970); United States v. Hanrahan, 260 F.Supp. 728 (D.D.C.1966). See also United States v. Dodge, 260 F.Supp. 929 (S.D.N.Y.1966) (Lumbard, C. J.); Plan for Implementing the Criminal Justice Act, 1st Cir. Rules, App. § (d); 5th Cir. R. 7(IV)(1); Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act, 8th Cir. Rules, App. § VI(2). Consistent with what I understand to be the practice of other circuits, I have also indicated that I would consider approving a fee computed at maximum statutory rates in a case involving extraordinary circumstances. United States v. Thompson, supra, 361 F.Supp. at 886-887; United States v. Harper, supra, 311 F.Supp. at 1073 n.9.1 In each of the cases before me, the district judge has found that counsel rendered services in "extended or complex representation" and that the circumstances of each case were extraordinary so as to require excess compensation computed at maximum statutory rates in order to provide appointed counsel "fair compensation" within the meaning of the act. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(3). I must therefore decide whether these determinations are consistent with the statutory criteria governing excess compensation for attorneys appointed to represent indigent defendants in a federal criminal case.
Preliminarily, I find that each of the applications for excess compensation is sufficiently detailed to permit the trial judge and me to conclude that the professional services involved in these felony cases were "reasonably expended" during the course of the representation. See United States v. Thompson, supra, 361 F.Supp. at 884; United States v. Naples, 266 F.Supp. 608 (D.D.C.1967). I have also concluded that, in each of these cases, the trial court's conclusion that these attorneys were involved in "extended or complex" representation is clearly correct and that, in consequence, these attorneys are entitled to "fair compensation" without regard to the usual statutory limit of $1,000. Accordingly, I turn to the circumstances set forth by the district judge in each of these cases in order to determine whether I should approve compensation computed at maximum statutory rates.
In Hunter, the trial judge's helpful memorandum sets forth the pertinent circumstances:
The trial judge approved counsel's application in the total amount of $2,165, representing payment at $30 per hour for each of the 35 hours of "in court" time expended during the course of the representation, and payment at $20 per hour for each of the 55.75 hours involved in "out of court" preparation.
In Raymond, the trial judge approved counsel's application at maximum statutory rates and filed the following memorandum:
In approving counsel's application in DeLoach, the trial judge stated:
Counsel for Ewing submitted an application for compensation in the amount of $2,469 which included $20 for out of pocket expenses incurred during the representation. The trial judge approved the application in full, endorsing it as follows:
I am well aware of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ayestas v. Davis
... ... No. 166795. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Oct. 30, 2017. Decided March 21, 2018. Lee ... Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 37.071, 2(b), (e) (Vernon Cum. Supp ... Hunter, 385 F.Supp. 358, 362 (D.D.C.1974). The basis for these ... ...
- United States v. Hunter, Crim. No. 2008-68