United States v. Rabb
| Decision Date | 17 January 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 8543.,8543. |
| Citation | 147 F.2d 225 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. POTTS v. RABB U. S. Marshal. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Walter Biddle Saul, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
M. H. Goldschein, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before GOODRICH and McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges, and BARD, District Judge.
Writ of Certiorari Denied April 9, 1945. See 65 S.Ct. 1013.
This matter is before us upon a petition to issue a "supplemental" or a new mandate to the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Pennsylvania directing it to "follow the decision" of this court rendered in an appeal from a previous decision of that court and reported in 141 F.2d 45. The petition requests that such new mandate direct the district court to compel the United States attorney to disclose to petitioner the names of the witnesses who testified before a grand jury which returned an indictment against petitioner charging him and others with a conspiracy to defraud the United States.
The facts, so far as they are relevant, are that petitioner was arrested on a bench warrant issued by the district court under the indictment against him. He thereupon filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the bench warrant was issued against him without cause and in derogation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. On the same day he was freed on bail. A few days later he filed a motion to quash the indictment on the same ground asserted in his petition for writ of habeas corpus.
From the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus petitioner appealed to this court, which dismissed his appeal as moot in view of the fact that the petitioner was not being restrained of his liberty. In our opinion, referred to above, we called attention to the fact that in any event a writ of habeas corpus would not lie to question the sufficiency of an indictment which on its face is within the jurisdiction of the court to which it was returned, and added at page 47 of 141 F.2d:
Petitioner subsequently filed with the district court a rule on the United States attorney to show cause why he should not disclose to petitioner or his attorney the names of the witnesses who testified before the grand jury. The court, in a written opinion, dismissed this petition. At the hearing of the motion to quash the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. v. Smith
...writ of mandamus could issue from this court only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651, and United States ex rel. Potts v. Rabb, 3 Cir., 147 F.2d 225, certiorari denied 324 U.S. 870, 65 S.Ct. 1013, 89 L.Ed. 1424. If the order of the court below is not appealable we w......
-
Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States, 1-57.
...v. Bondy, 2 Cir., 171 F.2d 642; Roche v. Evaporated Milk Association, 319 U.S. 21, 63 S.Ct. 938, 87 L.Ed. 1185; United States ex rel. Potts v. Rabb, 3 Cir., 147 F.2d 225, certiorari denied 324 U.S. 870, 65 S.Ct. 1013, 89 L.Ed. 1424. We have also examined the cases arising under Rule 54(b) o......
-
Gotham Silk Hosiery Co. v. Artcraft Silk Hos. Mills
... ... See also Yesbera v. Hardesty Mfg. Co., 6 Cir., 166 F. 120 ... In United States Frumentum Co. v. Lauhoff, 6 Cir., 216 F. 610, 615, there was a wilful infringement of a ... ...
-
United States v. Kranz
...S. ex rel. Potts v. Rabb, 3 Cir. 1944, 141 F.2d 45, certiorari denied 322 U.S. 727, 64 S.Ct. 943, 88 L.Ed. 1563, opinion supplemented 3 Cir., 147 F.2d 225, certiorari denied 324 U.S. 870, 65 S.Ct. 1013, 89 L.Ed. 1424. The sufficiency of an indictment cannot be collaterally attacked. U. S. e......