United States v. Williams, Comm. No. 11771.

Decision Date24 July 1963
Docket NumberComm. No. 11771.
Citation220 F. Supp. 556
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Thomas WILLIAMS and David Gerald Patterson, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of California

E. Richard Walker, Asst. U. S. Atty., Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff.

Lawrence F. Girolami, Sacramento. Cal., for defendants.

HALBERT, District Judge.

This is an appeal by the defendant, Thomas Williams, from a judgment of conviction in the Commissioner's Court. The appeal has been properly brought to this Court pursuant to the provisions of Title 18 U.S.C. § 3402.

Each of the defendants in this case was charged with a violation of Title 16 U.S.C. § 703 and Migratory Bird Regulation 10.51f. The defendants elected to be tried by the Commissioner. After hearing the evidence adduced at the trial, the Commissioner found each of the defendants guilty as charged. It is from this judgment of conviction that defendant Williams has appealed. Williams urges a reversal of his conviction on the grounds that:

(1) The judgment of the Commissioner is unsupported by the facts;
(2) As a matter of law, he is not guilty as charged; and
(3) The Commissioner made errors concerning the admission of evidence at the trial.

Pursuant to the mandate of Congress, found in Title 18 U.S.C. § 3402, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted rules of procedure for trials before Commissioners. Those rules are set forth in 311 U.S. at page 733, (also following the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in the United States Code Annotated, but not elsewhere so far as I can find). The rule with which we are here concerned is Rule 4, and the portion thereof pertinent to this proceeding reads as follows:

"The defendant shall not be entitled to a trial de novo in the District Court and the decision of the Commissioner upon questions of fact shall not be reexamined by the District Court. Only errors of law apparent from the record as certified by the Commissioner shall be considered by the court."

In the light of this rule, the District Court's duty in connection with an appeal from a Commissioner's judgment of conviction begins and ends with an examination of the record to ascertain if the record: (1) discloses evidence which will support the Commissioner's judgment of conviction, and (2) shows the trial to have been free of errors of law.

I have examined the record before me in this case, and I am of the view that the most than can be said about the evidence is that there was a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • United States v. Brown, Crim. A. No. 23919-3.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • 13 Mayo 1974
    ...493, 83 S.Ct. 1356, 10 L.Ed.2d 501, 507 (1963); United States v. Margraf, 347 F.Supp. 230, 232 (E.D.Pa.1972); United States v. Williams, 220 F.Supp. 556, 557 (N.D.Cal. 1963). The Requirement of Knowing In 1961, Congress added subsections (i) to (n), inclusive, to Section 1472, Title 49, Uni......
  • United States v. Ramirez
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 17 Enero 1983
    ...only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Li, 510 F.Supp. 276, 277 (D.Haw. 1981); United States v. Williams, 220 F.Supp. 556, 557 (N.D.Cal.1963). RIGHT TO COUNSEL A. Court Appointed Counsel Generally, the defendant in a criminal prosecution has a constitutional ri......
  • United States v. Hymans
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 7 Julio 1972
    ...is to ascertain if the record discloses evidence which will support the Commissioner's judgment of conviction. United States v. Williams, 220 F.Supp. 556 (N.D.Cal.1963). The Government's evidence is summarized as "On 8/25/70 at 3:30 P.M. he the Forest Ranger went to the Grottos Area while o......
  • United States v. McWhorter, Criminal Action No. 5:19-cr-00009
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • 15 Noviembre 2019
    ...from errors of law." United States v. Lewis, No. 10-CR-10, 2010 WL 772849, at *1 (W.D. Va. Mar. 3, 2010) (citing United States v. Williams, 220 F. Supp. 556 (N.D. Cal. 1963)).B. Analysis On appeal, McWhorter restates much of the argument she presented before the magistrate judge. Namely, sh......

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