United States v. Hammond

360 F.2d 688
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided May 11, 1966·No. No. 390. Docket 29840·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in open court the convictions for violation of the narcotics laws, 21 U.S.C. §§ 173, 174, entered after a ju[689]*689ry trial on May 21, 1965. Appellants argue that the fifteen-month delay between the offense and their arrest violated due process because it was an unnecessary delay which prejudiced their ability to recollect the events in question. Although appellants raised this question at trial the government was prevented from offering any explanation of the delay by defense counsel’s successful objection to such explanatory testimony. We adhere to our decision in United States v. Wilson, 2 Cir., 342 F.2d 782, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 860, 86 S.Ct. 119, 15 L.Ed.2d 98 (1965), that such a delay, in the absence of any other circumstances, does not violate any right of the accused. Ross v. United States, 349 F.2d 210 (D.C.Cir.1965), cited by appellants and decided subsequent to our decisions, does not persuade us to the contrary.

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

United States v. Hammond, 360 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1966).

360 F.2d 688 (United States v. Hammond) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Roundtree
285 A.2d 564 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1971)
United States v. Marion
404 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1971)
United States v. Freddie Golden
436 F.2d 941 (Eighth Circuit, 1971)
United States v. Peterson
302 F. Supp. 1232 (D. Minnesota, 1969)
Jerome Benson v. United States
402 F.2d 576 (Ninth Circuit, 1968)
United States v. Curry
284 F. Supp. 458 (N.D. Illinois, 1968)
United States v. Antonio Torres Sanchez
361 F.2d 824 (Second Circuit, 1966)
United States v. Robert Hammond and Robert Lewis
360 F.2d 688 (Second Circuit, 1966)