Norman Pannell v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Norman Pannell v. United States

320 F.2d 698, 115 U.S. App. D.C. 379, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5286

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 16, 1963

Docket17557_1

StatusPublished

Cited by38 cases

This text of 320 F.2d 698 (Norman Pannell v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Norman Pannell v. United States, 320 F.2d 698, 115 U.S. App. D.C. 379, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5286 (D.C. Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinions

BURGER, Circuit Judge.

Appellant’s application for release on bond pending appeal is granted and bail is fixed at $5000.

Appellant having been indicted with his wife and five others on multiple counts for violation of narcotics statutes was convicted on three counts. Pending trial he was released on $5000-bail. After conviction the District Court granted an appeal at public expense but denied bail. For all practical purposes-direct appeal from conviction at government expense can no longer be denied by the District Court or this court except on the same basis as in paid appeals. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962). Hence no evaluation of the merits of an appeal can be read into the action of a District Judge in granting an appeal in forma pauperis. Until appellant’s conviction he was presumed innocent but that presumption is altered with guilty verdict, and judgment.

As one who has been previously convicted on a narcotics charge and now stands convicted a second time, his posture for bail purposes has changed from what it was before trial and verdict. His job opportunities after two narcotics convictions are hardly the best and we must-view his claim that he can secure gainful employment only as a hopeful objective not supported by any evidence. A firm commitment for employment would be a relevant consideration to any consideration of bail pending appeal.

Fixing the amount of bail once it is decided to grant bail is at best a [699]*699"difficult task for which there are few genuine guide lines. We can see no basis on this record for reducing the amount of bail now that appellant has been convicted a second time on serious narcotics charges; nor can we anticipate the impact of changes — and we hope improvements — which will result from current studies on the subject of bail.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BURGER, Circuit Judge.

Appellant’s application for release on bond pending appeal is granted and bail is fixed at $5000.

Appellant having been indicted with his wife and five others on multiple counts for violation of narcotics statutes was convicted on three counts. Pending trial he was released on $5000-bail. After conviction the District Court granted an appeal at public expense but denied bail. For all practical purposes-direct appeal from conviction at government expense can no longer be denied by the District Court or this court except on the same basis as in paid appeals. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962). Hence no evaluation of the merits of an appeal can be read into the action of a District Judge in granting an appeal in forma pauperis. Until appellant’s conviction he was presumed innocent but that presumption is altered with guilty verdict, and judgment.

As one who has been previously convicted on a narcotics charge and now stands convicted a second time, his posture for bail purposes has changed from what it was before trial and verdict. His job opportunities after two narcotics convictions are hardly the best and we must-view his claim that he can secure gainful employment only as a hopeful objective not supported by any evidence. A firm commitment for employment would be a relevant consideration to any consideration of bail pending appeal.

Fixing the amount of bail once it is decided to grant bail is at best a [699]*699"difficult task for which there are few genuine guide lines. We can see no basis on this record for reducing the amount of bail now that appellant has been convicted a second time on serious narcotics charges; nor can we anticipate the impact of changes — and we hope improvements — which will result from current studies on the subject of bail.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 F.2d 698, 115 U.S. App. D.C. 379, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norman-pannell-v-united-states-cadc-1963.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack