United States v. Newman, Crim. No. 77483-77486.
| Court | United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | Andrew W. Carroll, Washington, D. C., for defendant |
| Citation | 126 F. Supp. 94 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 77483-77486. |
| Decision Date | 30 November 1954 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. James E. H. NEWMAN. |
126 F. Supp. 94
UNITED STATES
v.
James E. H. NEWMAN.
Crim. Nos. 77483-77486.
United States District Court District of Columbia.
November 30, 1954.
Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., Alexander L. Stevas, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Andrew W. Carroll, Washington, D. C., for defendant.
LAWS, Chief Judge.
Pursuant to statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, defendant has moved to vacate pleas of guilty entered on December 16, 1946, in the above-entitled cases, to vacate sentence, to award a new trial, and for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to be heard in oral testimony in support of this motion. He alleges the pleas of guilty were not voluntarily made, but were induced by coercion, fear, and misconduct of his counsel and the District Attorney.
The Court must first determine whether it shall require the presence of defendant who is presently incarcerated at Alcatraz, California. Defendant's able counsel appointed by the Court argues defendant's allegations create substantial issues of facts as to events in which the prisoner participated, and under the decision of United States v. Hayman, 1952, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232, defendant is entitled as a matter of right to be present at a hearing on the motion. The prosecution argues this is a second or successive motion for similar relief which under the statute need not be entertained, and in addition adverts to the risks in transferring across the breadth of the country for hearing a dangerous prisoner who has once unsuccessfully sought to escape.
Section 2255 was enacted, as Chief Justice Vinson observed in the Hayman case in an extensive review of the history of the section, to meet practical difficulties in the administration of the habeas corpus jurisdiction of the United States courts. The disadvantages of expense, risk of escape or delivery in transporting prisoners, and the incentive to file baseless motions were considered to be outweighed by the advantages in providing a more convenient forum where records, court officials and witnesses would be readily available. Under Section 2 of the jurisdictional Bill as originally submitted to Congress by the Judicial Conference of the United States, this defendant might have been left to pursue his remedies by habeas corpus in the district of confinement. The memorandum accompanying the letter of transmittal of the Bill by the Judicial Conference stated: "If it appears that it is not practicable for the prisoner to have his motion determined in the trial court because of his inability to be present at the hearing, `or for other reasons', then he has the right to make application to the court in the district where he is confined. Such an instance might occur where a dangerous prisoner, who has been convicted in the Southern District of New York, was confined in Alcatraz Penitentiary." As the Bill finally was enacted into law, however, Section 2255 provides an application for habeas corpus shall not be entertained "unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention."
It does not here appear the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective. The pleas were entered before this Court. Such records and witnesses as are available would be available to this Court. There would be inherent risks in bringing this prisoner before any court. It appears more practicable that the matter be determined in the Court where the events are alleged to have occurred than in the district of confinement. This being so, the character of defendant as a dangerous prisoner should not affect the determination of the Court whether he shall be brought before the Court to give oral testimony.
Under Section 2255, defendant is entitled to a hearing "Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief * * *." While the statute provides "A court may entertain and determine such motion without requiring the production of the prisoner at the hearing", the Hayman case decided, "Where * * * there are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. United States, No. 14599.
...221, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 899, 77 S.Ct. 140, 1 L.Ed.2d 90, and Chief Judge Laws' opinion in United States v. Newman, D.C.D.C.1954, 126 F.Supp. 94.3 In short, the refusal of the court to entertain the motion was judicial action subject to judicial review under the terms of § 2255 When ......
-
Bistram v. United States, Cr. No. 7885.
...denied 358 U.S. 847, 79 S.Ct. 72, 3 L.Ed.2d 81; Donovan v. United States, 10 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d 557; United States v. Newman, D.C.1954, 126 F.Supp. 94." (Emphasis The petitioner Bistram at the time of the plenary hearing granted him on one of his Sec. 2255 motions was given an opportunity......
-
Cain v. United States, No. 16095.
...denied 358 U.S. 847, 79 S.Ct. 72, 3 L.Ed.2d 81; Donovan v. United States, 10 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d 557; United States v. Newman, D.C.1954, 126 F.Supp. 94. Cf., Canizio v. People of State of New York, 1946, 327 U.S. 82, 66 S.Ct. 452, 90 L.Ed. 545 (coram nobis petition). This court has said, i......
-
Rivett v. State, No. 374
...as distinguished from mere conclusions.' See also Richardson v. United States, 217 F.2d 696 (8th Cir. 1954); and United States v. Newman, 126 F.Supp. 94 at pages 97-98 (D.D.C.1954), in which the court, in answer to charges by the defendant of fraud and coercion, stated that in the light of ......
-
Smith v. United States, No. 14599.
...221, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 899, 77 S.Ct. 140, 1 L.Ed.2d 90, and Chief Judge Laws' opinion in United States v. Newman, D.C.D.C.1954, 126 F.Supp. 94.3 In short, the refusal of the court to entertain the motion was judicial action subject to judicial review under the terms of § 2255 When ......
-
Bistram v. United States, Cr. No. 7885.
...denied 358 U.S. 847, 79 S.Ct. 72, 3 L.Ed.2d 81; Donovan v. United States, 10 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d 557; United States v. Newman, D.C.1954, 126 F.Supp. 94." (Emphasis The petitioner Bistram at the time of the plenary hearing granted him on one of his Sec. 2255 motions was given an opportunity......
-
Cain v. United States, No. 16095.
...denied 358 U.S. 847, 79 S.Ct. 72, 3 L.Ed.2d 81; Donovan v. United States, 10 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d 557; United States v. Newman, D.C.1954, 126 F.Supp. 94. Cf., Canizio v. People of State of New York, 1946, 327 U.S. 82, 66 S.Ct. 452, 90 L.Ed. 545 (coram nobis petition). This court has said, i......
-
Rivett v. State, No. 374
...as distinguished from mere conclusions.' See also Richardson v. United States, 217 F.2d 696 (8th Cir. 1954); and United States v. Newman, 126 F.Supp. 94 at pages 97-98 (D.D.C.1954), in which the court, in answer to charges by the defendant of fraud and coercion, stated that in the light of ......