Wagner v. United States, Misc. No. 649.
| Decision Date | 20 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. 649. |
| Citation | 250 F.2d 804 |
| Parties | Raymond John WAGNER, Anthony Joseph Cambiano and Donald Vandergrift, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
James P. Cantillon, Beverly Hills, Cal., and Ernest L. Graves, Wilmington, Cal., Cantillon & Cantillon, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant Vandergrift.
Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Lloyd F. Dunn, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief Criminal Division, and T. Conrad Judd, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before ORR, CHAMBERS and BARNES, Circuit Judges.
Vandergrift applies here for bail. He has made previous application in the District Court for bail after conviction of armed robbery of a postal employee (while acting as such) of the United States. Prior to sentence he was at large on bail of $10,000. The trial court has denied bail pending appeal upon the ground that the appeal was frivolous.
Another division or panel of this Court on October 25, 1957, entered an order permitting Vandergrift and his codefendants to appeal on a transcript of record at government expense. We accept that as determining here the law of the case to be that the appeal is not frivolous for the reason that that panel has not indicated it will further consider the question of frivolity when the transcript arrives, but has entered orders which contemplate the hearing of the appeals upon such points as the appellants may assert.
The government resists bail here, but also asserts, if bail be granted, the amount be not less than $30,000. And Vandergrift's counsel for the day (who represents him is elusive) says that he stipulates bail should be $30,000. This seems inconsistent with Vandergrift's poverty, but that is not our question for decision.
Had bail originally been nominal, we would be inclined to act now. But the prior bail of $10,000 indicates some possible question at the outset as to the defendant's responsibility to the orders of the Court. Since then he has been convicted and received a long sentence.
While the Constitution provides that bail shall not be excessive, Const. Amend. 8, yet that is not to say that every defendant is entitled to bail.
Therefore, the District Court is directed to reconsider its prior determination (after conviction) and make a further determination whether it considers Vandergrift a substantial risk to respond on $30,000 bail or any higher sum if he should be enlarged.* For this, it is better...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bretz v. Kelman
...was within the sound discretion of the state trial court. Kelly v. Springett, 527 F.2d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir.1975); Wagner v. United States, 250 F.2d 804, 805 (9th Cir.1957). Nor has Bretz a constitutionally protected interest in his reputation. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 ......
-
Kelly v. Springett
...to bail. Bloss v. Michigan, 421 F.2d 903, 905 (CA6 1970), cf. Roberson v. Connecticut, 501 F.2d 305, 308 (CA2 1974); Wagner v. United States, 250 F.2d 804, 805 (CA9 1957). The Bail Reform Act of 1966, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3146--3152, applies only to federal prisoners. united states ex rel. brown v.......
-
Ramey v. Russell
...shall not be excessive, does not demand that every criminal defendant is entitled to enlargement on bail bond. Wagner v. United States, C.A.9th (1957), 250 F.2d 804, 8053. But, "* * * bail is basic to our system of law. * * * Doubts whether it should be granted or denied should always be re......
-
Barnard v. United States
...if it is "taken in good faith" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, authorizing proceedings in forma pauperis. Wagner v. United States, 250 F.2d 804, 805 (9th Cir. 1957), cert. denied 360 U.S. 936, 79 S.Ct. 1459, 3 L.Ed.2d 1548. The Supreme Court has held that the "good-faith" test of Se......