Richard H. Ward v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Richard H. Ward v. United States

346 F.2d 423, 120 U.S. App. D.C. 311, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5739

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 30, 1965

Docket18420

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 346 F.2d 423 (Richard H. Ward 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

Richard H. Ward v. United States, 346 F.2d 423, 120 U.S. App. D.C. 311, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5739 (D.C. Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On appeal from convictions for narcotics offenses, appellant claims that he was denied a speedy trial, and that he was improperly refused a mental examination. The Government commendably conceded the latter claim, which would require a new trial if, after mental examination, appellant were judicially determined to be competent. 1 We withheld action on this concession to await the outcome of a remand we ordered to develop further the speedy trial claim, which could entail dismissal of the indictment. After extensive hearings on remand, the trial judge concluded that appellant was “deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial” by the Government’s failure to make a diligent effort to apprehend a co-defendant whose testimony could provide the only possible corroboration for his defense of mistaken identity. 2 Within our review authority, we find no basis for disturbing the judge’s conclusion. It follows that the case must be reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the indictment.

So ordered.

1

. Brown v. United States, 118 U.S.App. D.C. 76, 331 F.2d 822 (1964).

2

. Although the co-defendant eventually testified against Ward, the trial judge made no findings on remand that Ward acted in bad faith in refusing to be tried in his absence; nor does the record necessarily compel such a finding.

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

PER CURIAM:

On appeal from convictions for narcotics offenses, appellant claims that he was denied a speedy trial, and that he was improperly refused a mental examination. The Government commendably conceded the latter claim, which would require a new trial if, after mental examination, appellant were judicially determined to be competent. 1 We withheld action on this concession to await the outcome of a remand we ordered to develop further the speedy trial claim, which could entail dismissal of the indictment. After extensive hearings on remand, the trial judge concluded that appellant was “deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial” by the Government’s failure to make a diligent effort to apprehend a co-defendant whose testimony could provide the only possible corroboration for his defense of mistaken identity. 2 Within our review authority, we find no basis for disturbing the judge’s conclusion. It follows that the case must be reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the indictment.

So ordered.

1

. Brown v. United States, 118 U.S.App. D.C. 76, 331 F.2d 822 (1964).

2

. Although the co-defendant eventually testified against Ward, the trial judge made no findings on remand that Ward acted in bad faith in refusing to be tried in his absence; nor does the record necessarily compel such a finding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

346 F.2d 423, 120 U.S. App. D.C. 311, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-h-ward-v-united-states-cadc-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack