Bell v. United States

7 Citing cases

  1. Price v. Johnston

    334 U.S. 266 (1948)   Cited 1,365 times
    Holding that statutory authorization of writs "necessary" for the exercise of jurisdiction does not require that use of the writ be essential, but only that it be reasonably necessary in the interest of justice

    Oral argument on appeal is not an essential ingredient of due process and it may be circumscribed as to prisoners where reasonable necessity so dictates. But see Bell v. United States, 129 F.2d 290; Barber v. United States, 142 F.2d 805. A prisoner's right to participate in oral argument on appeal is accordingly to be determined by the exercise of the discretionary power of the circuit court of appeals under ยง 262.

  2. Ladner v. United States

    230 F.2d 726 (5th Cir. 1956)   Cited 9 times
    In Ladner v. United States, 230 F.2d 726 (5th Cir. 1956), rev'd 358 U.S. 169, 79 S.Ct. 209, 3 L.Ed.2d 199 (1958), the defendant had been sentenced for two separate offenses, under the same statute, of assaulting two federal officers by the sole act of discharging a shotgun in their direction.

    Barrett v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 1950, 180 F.2d 510, 20 A.L.R.2d 965. And see Bell v. United States, 5 Cir., 1942, 129 F.2d 290. On the other hand, if a single firing of a gun resulting in the wounding of two officers may constitute two separate offenses under the statute, then it becomes immaterial whether or not there was only one or more than one discharge of the weapon, and the question of fact need not be considered.

  3. Barrett v. Hunter

    180 F.2d 510 (10th Cir. 1950)   Cited 76 times
    In Barrett v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 180 F.2d 510, Section 2255 is held valid on the assumption that the court in a district other than the one of the prisoner's incarceration has the power to bring the prisoner's body before it.

    But where the motion and any response thereto present material and substantial issues of fact requiring a hearing, generally, in the exercise of a sound discretion, the Court should require the production of the prisoner. Cf. Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 278, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 92 L.Ed. 1356, and Bell v. United States, 5 Cir., 129 F.2d 290. A writ of habeas corpus is a writ of right when reasonable cause is shown, but it is not a writ of course. It is granted only in the exercise of sound judicial discretion.

  4. Burton v. United States

    175 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1949)   Cited 18 times

    No move was made to take the deposition of Hughes. Under these circumstances the general rule applies that the grant of a continuance rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge. Isaacs v. United States, 159 U.S. 487, 16 S.Ct. 51, 40 L.Ed. 229. Burton could readily have taken the deposition of Hughes, though the prosecution could not. The evidence on the trial was not closed till May 14. See Heflin v. United States, 5 Cir., 132 F.2d 907; Bell v. United States, 5 Cir., 129 F.2d 290; Samples v. United States, 5 Cir., 121 F.2d 263. 3. The motions for acquittal were properly denied.

  5. Price v. Johnston

    159 F.2d 234 (9th Cir. 1947)   Cited 13 times

    We have already discussed this doctrine. Compare, in this connection, Schwab v. Berggren, 143 U.S. 442, 12 S.Ct. 525, 36 L.Ed. 218; Bell v. United States, 5 Cir., 129 F.2d 290; Barber v. United States, 4 Cir., 142 F.2d 805. Questions of authority aside, it is but just to observe that despite his detention Price has been able substantially to take advantage of the statute he invokes, that is to say, he has in fact managed and conducted his own appeal in all essential particulars, including the argument of it, albeit the argument is in writing.

  6. Bell v. Johnston

    152 F.2d 59 (9th Cir. 1945)   Cited 1 times

    Certiorari to review its affirmance was denied on October 19, 1942. Bell v. United States, 5 Cir., 129 F.2d 290. Bell v. United States, 317 U.S. 665, 63 S.Ct. 74, 87 L.Ed. 534.

  7. Barber v. United States

    142 F.2d 805 (4th Cir. 1944)   Cited 49 times
    In Barber v. United States, 4 Cir., 142 F.2d 805, 807, said Judge Parker, citing United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 35 S.Ct. 16, 59 L.Ed. 129, and speaking for our Court: "Motion in the nature of petition for writ of error coram nobis is available only for the purpose of bringing before the court `errors in matters of fact which had not been put in issue and passed upon, and were material to the validity and regularity of the legal proceeding itself.'"

    Schwab v. Berggren, 143 U.S. 442, 12 S.Ct. 525, 36 L.Ed. 218; Ormsby v. United States, 6 Cir., 273 F. 977, 985; Alexis v. United States, 5 Cir., 129 F. 60, 64; Com. v. Costello, 121 Mass. 371, 23 Am.Rep. 277; State v. Jacobs, 107 N.C. 772, 11 S.E. 962, 22 Am.St.Rep. 912; 14 Am.Jur. 900; 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, ยง 1504, p. 1325; note, 5 L.R.A. 835. As said in State v. Fahey, 35 La.Ann. 9, 12: "It can now be considered as elementary, that the absence of the accused during the trial of motions not making part of the actual trial of his guilt or innocence, but having reference to the form or conduct of the trial, will not vitiate the proceedings". A recent decision directly in point is that of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit in Bell v. United States, 5 Cir., 129 F.2d 290, 291. That case involved a motion, in the nature of a petition for writ of error coram nobis, that a conviction be set aside on the ground that the defendant had been deprived of his constitutional right to counsel and to compulsory process for witnesses and had been otherwise unfairly dealt with. In sustaining the action of the trial judge in refusing the request of the defendant for an order that he be brought from Alcatraz to be present at the hearing of the motion, the Court, speaking through Judge Sibley, said: "The refusals of the judge to postpone the hearing to secure witnesses, and to order Bell brought from Alcatraz, are specified as error. Bell's presence was no more necessary than for the hearing of any other motion for new trial.