Roy Levi Boone v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Roy Levi Boone v. United States

280 F.2d 911, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4394

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 3, 1960

Docket13965_1

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 280 F.2d 911 (Roy Levi Boone v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roy Levi Boone v. United States, 280 F.2d 911, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4394 (6th Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case came on to be heard, appellant being represented by counsel appointed by the court, and an Assistant United States Attorney appearing for the United States.

The charge that appellant was not represented adequately by his self-chosen attorney is not supported: on the contrary, it appears from the order and memorandum opinion of United States District Judge Shelbourne, 185 F.Supp. 411, that the petitioner’s self-chosen counsel “rendered effective service.”

On the other point argued by the appellant, that he did not have a preliminary hearing before the United States Commissioner, there is no necessity for such hearing after a grand jury has returned an indictment, as was the ease here. As was said by Judge Parker in Barber v. United States, 4 Cir., 142 F.2d 805, 807: “The only purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence against an accused to warrant his being held for action by a grand jury; and, after a bill of indictment has been found, there is no occasion for such hearing.” Cf. Garrison v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 104 F.2d 128; James et al. v. Lawrence, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 355, 176 F.2d 18.

The order of the district court is affirmed. . . .

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

PER CURIAM.

This case came on to be heard, appellant being represented by counsel appointed by the court, and an Assistant United States Attorney appearing for the United States.

The charge that appellant was not represented adequately by his self-chosen attorney is not supported: on the contrary, it appears from the order and memorandum opinion of United States District Judge Shelbourne, 185 F.Supp. 411, that the petitioner’s self-chosen counsel “rendered effective service.”

On the other point argued by the appellant, that he did not have a preliminary hearing before the United States Commissioner, there is no necessity for such hearing after a grand jury has returned an indictment, as was the ease here. As was said by Judge Parker in Barber v. United States, 4 Cir., 142 F.2d 805, 807: “The only purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence against an accused to warrant his being held for action by a grand jury; and, after a bill of indictment has been found, there is no occasion for such hearing.” Cf. Garrison v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 104 F.2d 128; James et al. v. Lawrence, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 355, 176 F.2d 18.

The order of the district court is affirmed. . . .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 F.2d 911, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roy-levi-boone-v-united-states-ca6-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack