United States v. Helene Stahl

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Helene Stahl

753 F.2d 1511, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28860

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 21, 1985

Docket84-5349

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 753 F.2d 1511 (United States v. Helene Stahl) 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. Helene Stahl, 753 F.2d 1511, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28860 (9th Cir. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The appellant requests us to rule that the district court may not decline, as a matter of course, to accept encumbered real property as security for the release of a defendant, pending trial on criminal charges. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142. We recognize that a rigid policy not to accept real property that is encumbered even by nothing more than a first deed of trust raises substantial statutory and constitutional questions. See United States v. Beaman, 631 F.2d 85 (6th Cir.1980). The question is complicated by the Government’s contention that it has no ability to protect its equity interest when there is a sale under the first deed of trust. We decline to reach the merits of this question, as we conclude the present case does not squarely present the issue. This court ordered that the encumbered real property be accepted, and the Government has no objection to the terms and conditions of our ruling. The defendant shall remain at large on the bond previously set in this case.

It is so ordered.

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

ORDER

The appellant requests us to rule that the district court may not decline, as a matter of course, to accept encumbered real property as security for the release of a defendant, pending trial on criminal charges. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142. We recognize that a rigid policy not to accept real property that is encumbered even by nothing more than a first deed of trust raises substantial statutory and constitutional questions. See United States v. Beaman, 631 F.2d 85 (6th Cir.1980). The question is complicated by the Government’s contention that it has no ability to protect its equity interest when there is a sale under the first deed of trust. We decline to reach the merits of this question, as we conclude the present case does not squarely present the issue. This court ordered that the encumbered real property be accepted, and the Government has no objection to the terms and conditions of our ruling. The defendant shall remain at large on the bond previously set in this case.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

753 F.2d 1511, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-helene-stahl-ca9-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack