United States v. Bacon

428 A.2d 852, 1981 D.C. App. LEXIS 244
District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided March 17, 1981·No. No. 80-407·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

On March 18, 1980, Judge Sylvia Bacon entered orders which granted, in part, the defendants’ preindictment request for discovery.** The government has petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial judge to vacate her orders on the ground that she had no authority, inherent or under Super.Ct.Cr.R. 16, to direct the government to afford discovery to persons who have been detained but not indicted. On notice to the court, while the petition was pending, that the defendants had been indicted, we issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as moot. The government filed a response urging a decision on the petition.

[853] We conclude that the issue presented in this case, while theoretically capable of repetition, is not likely to evade review. We say this for the same reason that we would deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Where there is an available procedure, even short of contempt, to bring a serious, vigorously disputed matter before this court, on a direct appeal, see Holmes v. United States, D.C.App., 343 A.2d 272, rehearing denied, 346 A.2d 517 (1975), issuance of the extraordinary writ of mandamus is inappropriate and impermissible. Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967). Since the issue may readily be brought before this court for review in a proper case, the instant petition is dismissed as moot.

So ordered.

Footnotes

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

United States v. Bacon, 428 A.2d 852, 1981 D.C. App. LEXIS 244 (D.C. 1981).

428 A.2d 852 (United States v. Bacon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hale v. Henkel
201 U.S. 43 (Supreme Court, 1906)
Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn.
319 U.S. 21 (Supreme Court, 1943)
Will v. United States
389 U.S. 90 (Supreme Court, 1967)
United States v. Dionisio
410 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Roe v. Wade
410 U.S. 113 (Supreme Court, 1973)
United States v. Calandra
414 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court, 1974)
United States v. Mandujano
425 U.S. 564 (Supreme Court, 1976)
United States v. Donovan
429 U.S. 413 (Supreme Court, 1977)
Frank Larocca v. United States
337 F.2d 39 (Eighth Circuit, 1964)
United States v. Moultrie
340 A.2d 828 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1975)
United States v. Braman
327 A.2d 530 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1974)
Dobbs v. Neverson
393 A.2d 147 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1978)
In Re Possible Violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 201, 371
491 F. Supp. 211 (District of Columbia, 1980)
United States v. Engram
337 A.2d 488 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1975)
United States v. Holmes
343 A.2d 272 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1975)