UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ELMER GEORGE HAMILTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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.
An illegal abduction does not deprive a court of jurisdiction over the person, and a delay between arrest and arraignment does not violate speedy trial rights without proof of prejudice.
Hamilton was convicted of interstate transportation of forged checks. He argued his abduction by Canadian officials and a delay between arrest and arr…
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 Handwriting Exemplars cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Hamilton appeals from his conviction for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 (interstate transportation of forged checks).
He contends that he was illegally delivered into state custody by Canadian border officials and that his “abduction” deprived the district court of jurisdiction of his person. Assuming, arguendo, that he was thus illegally taken into custody, that fact does not impair jurisdiction to try him for the offense of which he was convicted. (Frisbie v. Collins (1952) 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541; United States v. Zammiello (9th Cir. 1970) 432 F. 2d 72; Stevenson v. United States (9th Cir. 1967) 381 F. 2d 142.)
Hamilton next argues that a 23-day delay between his arrest and his ar raignment deprived him of his constitutional guaranty of a speedy trial. He was tried promptly after his arraignment. Hamilton failed to establish that he suffered prejudice caused by the delay. The difficulties he recites were attributable to his being properly transported from North Dakota to Washington to stand trial and not to the time elapsing between his arrest and arraignment.
Hamilton’s attack on the composition of the jury lacks merit. ' He offered neither pleading nor proof of any arbitrary or systematic exclusion of minorities from the jury.
His final claim that the taking of his handwritten exemplars violated the Fifth Amendment is foreclosed by Gilbert v. California (1967) 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Cotten, 471 F.2d 744 (9th Cir. 1973)
-
United States v. Darrel Riviere, 924 F.2d 1289 (3d Cir. 1991)
-
Myers v. Rhay, 577 F.2d 504 (9th Cir. 1978)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1967)
- Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1952)
- United States v. Zammiello, 432 F.2d 72 (9th Cir. 1970)
- Junior Douglas Stevenson and Elbert Nero v. United States, 381 F.2d 142 (9th Cir. 1967)