SALDANA
v.
UNITED STATES
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.
Saldana was convicted of narcotics offenses under a five-count indictment, but the Supreme Court set aside three of the convictions based on procedural irregularities in the trial court's administration of justice. Specifically, the Court found that the combination of circumstances—wherein one judge expressed an intention to impose a five-year sentence but was replaced by another judge who imposed a twenty-year sentence—was inconsistent with the regularity and fairness required in federal criminal proceedings. The Court affirmed only the conviction on count 2, to which Saldana had originally pleaded guilty.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
The petitioner was convicted on four counts of a five-count indictment charging offenses under the narcotics laws. 21 U. S. C. § 174. He complains of a number of alleged trial errors. In addition, he points to a series of events occurring during the course of the prosecution which, he says, operated to deprive him of constitutionally guaranteed rights. It is unnecessary to detail here the course of those proceedings, since we are advised that a change in the calendar system of the District Court for the Southern District of California insures that what occurred in this case will not occur again.
During oral argument in this Court the Solicitor General suggested that the combination of circumstances in this case, beginning with one judge’s clearly expressed intention to impose a five-year sentence, and ending with another judge’s imposition of a twenty-year sentence under the indictment, was not consistent with that regularity and fairness which should characterize the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts. In the light of the Solicitor General’s suggestion, and upon an independent examination of the record, we have concluded that a due regard for the fair administration of justice requires that the convictions under counts 3, 4, and 5 of the indictment be set aside. 28 U. S. C. § 2106; see Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U. S. 115, 124; Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U. S. 1, 14; Marshall v. United States, 360 U. S. 310. Cf. Petite v. United States, 361 U. S. 529. The conviction under count 2, to which the petitioner originally pleaded guilty, is affirmed.
Because of this disposition of the case, we do not reach for consideration the alleged trial errors with respect to •limitation of cross-examination, sufficiency of the evidence of a “sale” under count 5, and instructions to the jury as to entrapment.
So ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Snyder, 428 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1970)…225 ff. The second part of Snyder’s motion to dismiss the indictment is related to the perjury counts, and is based on what Snyder calls the “basic inequity” of the situation. In support of his argument Snyder cites Saldana v. United States, 1961, 365 U.S. 646, 81 S.Ct. 783, 5 L.Ed.2d 855. In that case a defendant who had more or less been promised a five-year sentence by one judge was given a twenty-year sentence by another. That is a far cry from this case. Here, the only “inequity” was in Snyder’s own…
-
Enriquez v. United States, 293 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1961)…, is not reversible error. We find no merit in appellants’ first Point VIII — (p. 85 of Brief) (that the sentence imposed on appellants was heavier than that on other defendants.) The peculiar circumstances present in Saldana v. United States, 1961, 365 U.S. 646, 81 S.Ct. 783, 5 L.Ed.2d 855 (reversing 9 Cir., 274 F. 2d 352) do not here exist. [*793] We find no merit in appellants’ ninth point (second point numbered VIII, p. 89 of Brief). As appellants concede, it is purely a discretionary matter whether a p…
-
United States v. Dawson, 642 F.2d 1060 (7th Cir. 1981)…it in Dawson’s case. He did not. His failure to do so was a failure to exercise discretion and inconsistent “with that regularity and fairness which should characterize the administration of justice in the federal courts.” Saldana v. United States, 365 U.S. 646, 647, 81 S.Ct. 783, 784, 5 L.Ed.2d 855 (1961). As to the second requirement, the majority admits that one of the conditions of the district court’s entertaining a motion to reduce would be Dawson’s decision to cooperate. The difficulty with imposin…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1959)
- Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1956)
- Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (U.S. 1960)
- Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 351 U.S. 115 (U.S. 1956)
- Adams v. Banmiller, 364 U.S. 807 (U.S. 1961)