United States v. Partlow, 700

Decision Date22 June 1970
Docket NumberDocket 33363.,No. 700,700
Citation428 F.2d 814
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee. v. Rufus P. PARTLOW, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Ira I. van Leer, New York City, for appellant.

Jerome C. Ditore, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Edward R. Neaher, U. S. Atty., for the Eastern District of New York, of counsel), for appellee.

Before MOORE and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and WEINFELD, District Judge.**

PER CURIAM:

Appellant and a co-defendant were charged with two counts of knowing possession of goods stolen from an interstate shipment of freight in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659. He was found guilty on one count, and not guilty on the other count, by a jury in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, August 16, 1968, Judge Curtin presiding. On the day of sentencing, December 18, 1968, appellant moved to set aside the verdict on the ground that he had been involuntarily absent from the trial. After a hearing, the court denied appellant's motion and sentenced him to four years imprisonment. We affirm.

Appellant claims that he was denied his right to be present at his own trial, secured to him by the fifth and sixth amendments to the Constitution and by Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. He claims that his absence from the trial was involuntary.

The record shows the following sequence of events. Appellant had been arrested on March 28, 1967, and released on bail on May 9, 1967. The trial began with the selection of jurors Friday, August 9, 1968. Although directed to appear the following Monday, August 12, appellant did not appear. After several continuances and unsuccessful inquiries as to appellant's whereabouts, the court granted the government's motion on August 14, 1968 to proceed with the trial in the absence of appellant. The jury's verdicts were returned on August 16, 1968.

At the hearing on his motion to set aside the verdict, December 18, 1968, appellant explained his absence repeating essentially the same story he had first revealed to his Connecticut attorney on September 16, 1968 and to the court by letter on October 11, 1968.

He claims that upon leaving the court-house on August 9, he was kidnapped at gunpoint and taken face-down on the floor of a car to the basement of a house near Montauk Point, Long Island. There he was handcuffed and chained to a pole which supported the house. His captors questioned him as to what information he had given the authorities, and intimidated him by showing him his car buried in a sand pit as a visual reminder of what might happen to him.

After seven days' captivity he escaped and fled amidst a flurry of gunfire. He hitch-hiked back to Brooklyn and went directly home. After allegedly making cursory attempts to notify the authorities of his whereabouts, he directed his wife to make contact, and then left his home although he thought his house was being watched. He was then recaptured and confined in a warehouse in Brooklyn, where he was permitted to call his wife, but he did not notify his lawyer or the authorities of his plight.

He was thereafter sent on "a job"; he drove a Cadillac car to Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The man he was to see there was in California, so appellant began the return trip. He was apprehended in Connecticut on September 6, 1968, for driving a stolen car without a license. The Connecticut authorities apparently discovered that he was a fugitive around September 13, 1968 and appellant told them he was not scheduled for trial in Brooklyn until September 23, 1968.

Appellant told his story to his Connecticut attorney on September 16, 1968, to the court by letter on October 11, 1968, but not to his attorney here until the day of sentencing, apparently because he felt he could not consult with his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • People v. Ramirez
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 5 Marzo 2020
    ...112 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1369 (Pigage) ["'A crucial question must always be, "Why is the defendant absent?"'"]; United States v. Partlow (1970) 428 F.2d 814, 816 (Partlow) ["we cannot presume the waiver of constitutional rights"].) The court ruled Ramirez was voluntarily absent because his abs......
  • People v. Snyder
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 12 Marzo 1976
    ...the reviewing court must determine, on the whole record, whether defendant's absence was knowing and voluntary. (See United States v. Partlow (2d Cir. 1970) 428 F.2d 814; Cureton v. United States (D.C.Cir. 1968) Supra, 396 F.2d 671; Phillips v. United States (9th Cir. 1974) 334 F.2d 589, 59......
  • Haley v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 11 Octubre 1978
    ...v. Garcia-Turino, 458 F.2d 1345 (9th Cir.), Cert. denied, 409 U.S. 951, 93 S.Ct. 296, 34 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972) and United States v. Partlow, 428 F.2d 814 (2d Cir. 1970). The holdings in these and other cases cited in 21 A.L.R.Fed., Supra at 921-24, make it clear that a trial court should make ......
  • Gilbert v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 1 Octubre 1979
    ...the reviewing court must determine, on the whole record, whether defendant's absence was knowing and voluntary. (See: United States v. Partlow (2d Cir. 1970) 428 F.2d 814; Cureton v. United States (1968) Supra, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 396 F.2d 671; Phillips v. United States (9th Cir. 1964) 334......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT