MAURICE DEANS, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the District Court's judgment, finding no error affecting substantial rights despite a substantial delay between offenses and arrest.
The defendant-appellant appealed a judgment from the District Court. The appeal concerned the substantial delay between offenses and arrest, but the d…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudice From Delay cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was argued by counsel.
Although the delay between the time of some of the offenses and the time of the arrest was substantial, the testimony of the defendant-appellant demonstrated his ability to recall the details of the transactions, and thus tended to negate prejudice from the delay; and moreover, the sentences imposed were concurrent, see Hirabayshi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943); and the court concludes that no error occurred affecting substantial rights, it is
Ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the District Court on appeal in this cause is hereby affirmed.
ORDER
Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Fahy, Washington, Danaher, Bastían, Burger, Wright and McGowan, Circuit Judges, in Chambers.
PER CURIAM.
On consideration of appellant’s petition for rehearing en bane, it is
Ordered by the Court en bane that appellant’s petition is denied.
BAZELON, Chief Judge, would grant appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc. See his dissenting statement in Hardy and Ferguson v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. -, 343 F. 2d 233.
WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, prior to his retirement on October 15, 1964, voted to deny appellant’s petition.
FAHY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, would grant appellant’s petition.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1943)
- Hardy v. United States, 343 F.2d 233 (D.C. Cir. 1964)