United States v. Elmer George Hamilton

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Elmer George Hamilton

460 F.2d 1270, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9263

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 1972

Docket71-2998

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 460 F.2d 1270 (United States v. Elmer George Hamilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Elmer George Hamilton, 460 F.2d 1270, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9263 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Hamilton appeals from his conviction for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 (interstate transportation of forged checks).

He contends that he was illegally delivered into state custody by Canadian border officials and that his “abduction” deprived the district court of jurisdiction of his person. Assuming, arguendo, that he was thus illegally taken into custody, that fact does not impair jurisdiction to try him for the offense of which he was convicted. (Frisbie v. Collins (1952) 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541; United States v. Zammiello (9th Cir. 1970) 432 F.2d 72; Stevenson v. United States (9th Cir. 1967) 381 F.2d 142.)

Hamilton next argues that a 23-day delay between his arrest and his ar *1271 raignment deprived him of his constitutional guaranty of a speedy trial. He was tried promptly after his arraignment. Hamilton failed to establish that he suffered prejudice caused by the delay. The difficulties he recites were attributable to his being properly transported from North Dakota to Washington to stand trial and not to the time elapsing between his arrest and arraignment.

Hamilton’s attack on the composition of the jury lacks merit. ' He offered neither pleading nor proof of any arbitrary or systematic exclusion of minorities from the jury.

His final claim that the taking of his handwritten exemplars violated the Fifth Amendment is foreclosed by Gilbert v. California (1967) 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Hamilton appeals from his conviction for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 (interstate transportation of forged checks).

He contends that he was illegally delivered into state custody by Canadian border officials and that his “abduction” deprived the district court of jurisdiction of his person. Assuming, arguendo, that he was thus illegally taken into custody, that fact does not impair jurisdiction to try him for the offense of which he was convicted. (Frisbie v. Collins (1952) 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541; United States v. Zammiello (9th Cir. 1970) 432 F.2d 72; Stevenson v. United States (9th Cir. 1967) 381 F.2d 142.)

Hamilton next argues that a 23-day delay between his arrest and his ar *1271 raignment deprived him of his constitutional guaranty of a speedy trial. He was tried promptly after his arraignment. Hamilton failed to establish that he suffered prejudice caused by the delay. The difficulties he recites were attributable to his being properly transported from North Dakota to Washington to stand trial and not to the time elapsing between his arrest and arraignment.

Hamilton’s attack on the composition of the jury lacks merit. ' He offered neither pleading nor proof of any arbitrary or systematic exclusion of minorities from the jury.

His final claim that the taking of his handwritten exemplars violated the Fifth Amendment is foreclosed by Gilbert v. California (1967) 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

460 F.2d 1270, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-elmer-george-hamilton-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack