United States v. Maher, Cr. No. 4293
| Decision Date | 14 February 1950 |
| Docket Number | Cr. No. 4293,4395. |
| Citation | 88 F. Supp. 1007 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MAHER. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
None, for plaintiff.
Defendant pro se.
This is a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment entered in Criminal No. 4395, Northern Division, on November 26, 1946, accompanied by an affidavit of bias or prejudice.
Although a motion to vacate had been previously filed and denied, the present motion merits the attention of the court because of the question raised in the affidavit of bias or prejudice concerning the propriety of this court to act on defendant's motion to vacate judgment; and the only determination to be made at this time is whether or not this court is disqualified from acting on defendant's motion.
On November 26, 1946, the defendant, Maher, was found to have violated the conditions of probation imposed as a result of a previous conviction in Criminal No. 4293; and it was ordered that the original sentence of three years, imposed June 19, 1945, be executed and that defendant stand committed in execution of sentence. This sentence has been served by defendant.
On the same day, defendant after being advised of his rights, signed a waiver of prosecution by indictment and consent to proceed by information, in Criminal No. 4395. Defendant was arraigned on November 26, 1946, entered a plea of "Guilty" to the offenses charged in the information, and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two years, said sentence to begin at the expiration of the sentence of three years ordered executed that day in Criminal No. 4293. Defendant's motion to vacate is in connection with the two-year sentence imposed in Criminal No. 4395, which sentence the defendant is now serving.
The present issue is whether the judge of this court should be disqualified from acting upon the motion to vacate judgment, due to the fact that he was the United States Attorney for the District of Maine when the defendant was convicted and sentenced.
Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 507, provides that: "Except as otherwise provided by law, it shall be the duty of each United States attorney, within his district, to prosecute for all offenses against the United States * * *".
Section 455 of Title 28 U.S.C.A. provides that: "Any justice or judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any case in which he has a substantial interest, has been of counsel, is or has been a material witness, or is so related to or connected with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barry v. U.S.
...rule for almost 30 years, since the decisions in United States v. Vasilick, 160 F.2d 631, 632 (3d Cir. 1947), and United States v. Maher, 88 F.Supp. 1007, 1008 (D.Me. 1950). Courts uniformly follow that rule today. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Investigation, 486 F.2d 1013, 1015 (3d Cir. 1973......
-
Roberson v. United States
...is of counsel for the Government in criminal prosecutions. United States v. Vasilick, 3 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 631; United States v. Maher, D.C.Me.1950, 88 F.Supp. 1007. The case before us was not against Bryant so it does not appear that the letter of the statute would be applicable. But if ......
-
United States v. Amerine
..."of counsel" in any criminal prosecution in his district. United States v. Vasilick, 160 F.2d 631 (3d Cir. 1947); United States v. Maher, 88 F.Supp. 1007 (N.D.Me. 1950). There are two plausible reasons for rejecting appellant's disqualification issue. The first is that in actuality appellan......
-
Adams v. United States
...so. It tests it in terms of the identity of the case style, rather than the identity of the factual situation. United States v. Maher, D.Me., 1950, 88 F.Supp. 1007; United States v. Vasilick, 3 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 631. When it comes to the question of "a substantial interest," I am in agre......