United States v. Woody
| Decision Date | 04 October 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 1164.,1164. |
| Citation | 2 F.2d 262 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. WOODY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
John L. Slattery, U. S. Atty., and Ronald Higgins and W. H. Meigs, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Helena, Mont., for the United States.
The indictment presented June 27, 1922, charges that, while deputy collector of internal revenue of the United States, and from November, 1920, to March, 1921, defendant embezzled four different sums of money of the United States, ranging from $10 to $64. After nine months the bench warrant issued when indictment presented was by the marshal returned, "Unable to find." And now the prosecution moves to dismiss the indictment. The reasons advanced by the assistant district attorney (Mr. Higgins) are that accused has not been apprehended and considerable time has elapsed, that he is of a prominent pioneer family, is young, has divorced his wife and remarried her, is studying law in a California university, must of necessity plead guilty if arraigned, and thus his "career as a lawyer will be spoiled," that the government's losses have been reimbursed, and that the Attorney General has sanctioned dismissal.
Without enlarging upon what is obvious, the sufficiency of these "reasons" well may be doubted. They savor altogether too much of some variety of prestige and influence (family, friends, or money) that too often enables their possessors to violate the laws with impunity; whereas persons lacking them must suffer all the penalties. In brief, they and their like incite, if they do not justify, the too common reproach that criminal law is for none but the poor, friendless, and uninfluential; that in proportion to numbers the former are prosecuted, convicted, and punished in less degree than the latter, and their offenses are ignored, condoned, or pardoned in greater degree.
Than this belief in disparity in treatment of offenders, there is little that is more harmful to society, government, courts, law, and order; and, in so far as it is well founded, the basis of it is a pernicious evil, and abhorrent to justice. However, the district attorney has absolute control over criminal prosecutions, and can dismiss or refuse to prosecute, any of them at his discretion. The responsibility is wholly his. No leave of court is necessary; the court cannot prevent, and the motion is but a form to advise the court that the district attorney will not prosecute accused, and to clear the court's records of an abandoned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooper v. O'CONNOR
...S.Ct. 124, 79 L.Ed. 696; Lang v. Wood, 67 App.D. C. 287, 92 F.2d 211. 6 Confiscation Cases, 7 Wall. 454, 19 L.Ed. 196; United States v. Woody, D. C. Mont., 2 F.2d 262; United States v. Stowell, C. C. Mass., 27 Fed.Cas. p. 1350, No. 16,409; United States v. Schumann, C. C. Calif., 27 Fed.Cas......
-
Pugach v. Klein
...7 F.2d 397, affirmed 2 Cir., 16 F.2d 981, certiorari denied 1927, 274 U.S. 748, 47 S.Ct. 764, 71 L.Ed. 1331. See United States v. Woody, D.C.D.Mont.1924, 2 F.2d 262. Nor is there a residual power in private citizens to take law enforcement into their own hands when the United States Attorne......
-
United States v. Cox
...prosecutions, and can dismiss or refuse to prosecute, any of them at his discretion. The responsibility is wholly his." United States v. Woody, D.C.Mont.1924, 2 F.2d 262. The determination of whether and when to prosecute "is a matter of policy for the prosecuting officer and not for the de......
-
Billis v. State
...6 L. Orfield and M. Rhodes, Orfield's Criminal Commenting on the prosecutor's nolle prosequi power, the court in United States v. Woody, 2 F.2d 262, 262-63 (D.C.Mont.1924), Procedure Under the Federal Rules § 48.2-48.7, pp. 243-49 (2d ed.) (Lawyer's Co-op 1987); Comment, Criminal Law--Nolle......
-
The Elected Servant: Limiting Judicial Overview of State Prosecutors' Nolle Prosequi Power to Corruption and Infringement on Defendants' Rights.
...empanelment); Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 388 (1975) (noting when jeopardy attaches to bench trial); United States v. Woody, 2 F.2d 262, 262 (D. Mont. 1924) (affirming prosecution may enter nolle prosequi any time before jury impaneled); State v. Franton, 319 So. 2d 405, 406 (La......
-
18 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 48 Dismissal
...discretion, without any action by the court, prevails in the Federal courts, Confiscation Cases, 7 Wall. 454, 457; United States v. Woody, 2 F.2d 262 (D.Mont.). This provision will permit the filing of a nolle prosequi only by leave of court. This is similar to the rule now prevailing in ma......