State of New Hampshire v. Edward P. Bentley

First Circuit

State of New Hampshire v. Edward P. Bentley

406 F.2d 1064

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJanuary 27, 1969

Docket7217

StatusPublished

This text of 406 F.2d 1064 (State of New Hampshire v. Edward P. Bentley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State of New Hampshire v. Edward P. Bentley, 406 F.2d 1064 (1st Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant’s ability under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 to remove to the federal court a state court prosecution for a claimed offense against state motor vehicle laws before he has been through the various steps of the state procedure is strictly a matter of what Congress has, or has not, provided by the statute and is not a constitutional right. We believe it clear that the defendant has no case within the statute he seeks to rely on, which involves a special exception and a very different sort of right. Georgia v. Rachel, 1966, 384 U.S. 780, 86 S.Ct. 1783, 16 L.Ed.2d 925.

While, unfortunately, the defendant’s apparent misunderstanding of the law is such that we may not be able to satisfy him that he is laboring under serious misapprehension, we do observe this to be the fact. He has no constitutional right to a “direct jury trial.” The defendant may lose his license or registration first and get whatever hearing he is ultimately entitled to afterward. This seems to be the true effect of the state procedure, if it be assumed, which we need not decide, that he is entitled to a jury trial on this issue. Such order of events is not unconstitutional. See Wall v. King, 1 Cir., 1953, 206 F.2d 878, 883, cert. denied 346 U.S. 915, 74 S.Ct. 275, 98 L.Ed. 411.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant’s ability under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 to remove to the federal court a state court prosecution for a claimed offense against state motor vehicle laws before he has been through the various steps of the state procedure is strictly a matter of what Congress has, or has not, provided by the statute and is not a constitutional right. We believe it clear that the defendant has no case within the statute he seeks to rely on, which involves a special exception and a very different sort of right. Georgia v. Rachel, 1966, 384 U.S. 780, 86 S.Ct. 1783, 16 L.Ed.2d 925.

While, unfortunately, the defendant’s apparent misunderstanding of the law is such that we may not be able to satisfy him that he is laboring under serious misapprehension, we do observe this to be the fact. He has no constitutional right to a “direct jury trial.” The defendant may lose his license or registration first and get whatever hearing he is ultimately entitled to afterward. This seems to be the true effect of the state procedure, if it be assumed, which we need not decide, that he is entitled to a jury trial on this issue. Such order of events is not unconstitutional. See Wall v. King, 1 Cir., 1953, 206 F.2d 878, 883, cert. denied 346 U.S. 915, 74 S.Ct. 275, 98 L.Ed. 411.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

406 F.2d 1064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-new-hampshire-v-edward-p-bentley-ca1-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack