United States v. Morris, 12449.
| Decision Date | 17 February 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 12449.,12449. |
| Citation | 263 F.2d 594 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leslie Levi MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
R. Eugene Pincham, Charles B. Evins, Glenn C. Fowlkes, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Robert Tieken, U. S. Atty., John Peter Lulinski, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for appellee. Charles R. Purcell, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., of counsel.
Before DUFFY, Chief Judge, and HASTINGS and KNOCH, Circuit Judges.
The defendant was found guilty on three counts of an indictment charging violations of the federal narcotic laws.1 The case was tried to the court without a jury.
At the conclusion of all the evidence in the trial the record shows the following colloquy:
The record showing a prior conviction, defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years on each count, to be served concurrently. This appeal followed. The errors relied upon arise out of the insufficiency of the evidence, the court's refusal to make findings of fact, and rulings on evidence.
After this appeal was perfected defendant filed his brief on November 12, 1958. On December 9, 1958, the Government filed its "Suggestion to Remand for entry of findings of fact," pursuant to Rule 23 (c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. To this suggestion defendant filed objections. Rule 23(c) reads as follows:
(Our emphasis.)
Treating this suggestion as a motion, we deferred action thereon and stated we would consider it when the case was argued upon the merits. This was followed with an answer brief by the Government on the merits.
At the oral argument the Government, with commendable frankness, confessed error in the trial court's refusal to find the facts specially on defendant's request pursuant to Rule 23(c), and renewed its motion suggesting "the entry of an order remanding the instant cause to the court below for the purpose of directing said court to enter Findings of Fact, * * *; that upon the making of such Findings of Fact the court below forthwith transmit the record on appeal, including the proceedings had upon the making of such Findings of Fact, to this court for further disposition; and that the instant appeal be held in abeyance pending such further proceeding."
Following oral argument defendant filed his reply brief suggesting that the procedure requested by the Government "would not solve the dilemma created by the trial court's refusal to make findings of fact, but rather, would enhance the present problem and create additional ones," and urged a reversal and remandment for a new trial. Among other things, defendant urgently points out that the Government, before initially suggesting remandment for findings, had and now has (following oral argument by him on the merits) the benefit of defendant's attack upon the insufficiency of the evidence in this case, as well as defendant's argument directed to the weakness of the Government's case. He claims that to permit findings of fact to be drawn now could operate to his prejudice in light of the present posture of the case as distinguished from the time his request was made at the trial.
One of the reasons we took the Government's motion with the case is that no Court of Appeals seems to have been called upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dipetrillo
...e.g., Howard v. United States, 423 F.2d 1102 (9th Cir.1970); Haywood v. United States, 393 F.2d 780 (5th Cir.1968); United States v. Morris, 263 F.2d 594 (7th Cir.1959). Indeed, the case law seems to indicate that when an appellate court is required to review the decision of a trial justice......
-
U.S. v. Pisello
...way to preserve for appeal a contention that the court applied an erroneous standard of law...."); see also United States v. Morris, 263 F.2d 594, 595-96 (7th Cir.1959) (same); Wilson v. United States, 250 F.2d 312, 325 (9th Cir.1957) B. What the District Court Decided If the district court......
-
Howard v. United States, 22653.
...was entitled to those findings, and it would have been reversible error to have refused his timely request for them. (United States v. Morris (7th Cir. 1959) 263 F.2d 594.) We cannot condone an avoidance of Rule 23(c) by the expedient of conditioning a jury waiver on a waiver of special fin......
-
United States v. Weber, 18380.
...§ 2124 (Rules Edition). In such instances Rule 23(c) is mandatory upon a request for special findings of facts. United States v. Morris, 263 F.2d 594 (7th Cir. 1959). The district judge correctly concluded here that a probation revocation hearing is not such a trial, so that Rule 23(c) is i......
-
18 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 23 Jury Or Nonjury Trial
...the day after sentence was imposed. See generally Benchwick v. United States, 297 F.2d 330, 335 (9th Cir. 1961); United States v. Morris, 263 F.2d 594 (7th Cir. NOTES OF COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SENATE REPORT NO. 95-354; 1977 AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE SUPREME COURTSubsection (b) of sect......