United States v. Parker

District of Columbia

United States v. Parker

298 F. Supp. 482, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8981

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedMarch 25, 1969

DocketCrim. No. 331-67

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 298 F. Supp. 482 (United States v. Parker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Parker, 298 F. Supp. 482, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8981 (D.D.C. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

BAZELON, Chief Judge of United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit:

This is an application for excess compensation requiring my approval under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d). Counsel has already been awarded $500 for his services in the first trial, which resulted in a hung jury. The District Court has authorized payment of an additional $500 based on counsel’s claim of 37 hours spent in open Court during the second trial. Since the application before me contains no statement of the nature and purpose of the services rendered in the first trial, I am constrained to return it without my approval.

Where counsel represents the same defendant at two trials, a total award in excess of $500 must be predicated on a showing of “protracted representation.” United States v. Thomas, 261 F.Supp. 431 (D.D.C.1966). In order to discharge my responsibilities under the Act, I must have before me the details of counsel’s representation at both trials, regardless of whether he has already received compensation for the first trial.

Accordingly, I am returning the application without my approval, but without prejudice to the filing of an amended application that includes a statement, in the detail specified in United States v. Naples, 266 F.Supp. 608, 609 & n. 1 (D.D.C.1967), concerning the services rendered at the first trial as well as the second.

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

BAZELON, Chief Judge of United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit:

This is an application for excess compensation requiring my approval under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d). Counsel has already been awarded $500 for his services in the first trial, which resulted in a hung jury. The District Court has authorized payment of an additional $500 based on counsel’s claim of 37 hours spent in open Court during the second trial. Since the application before me contains no statement of the nature and purpose of the services rendered in the first trial, I am constrained to return it without my approval.

Where counsel represents the same defendant at two trials, a total award in excess of $500 must be predicated on a showing of “protracted representation.” United States v. Thomas, 261 F.Supp. 431 (D.D.C.1966). In order to discharge my responsibilities under the Act, I must have before me the details of counsel’s representation at both trials, regardless of whether he has already received compensation for the first trial.

Accordingly, I am returning the application without my approval, but without prejudice to the filing of an amended application that includes a statement, in the detail specified in United States v. Naples, 266 F.Supp. 608, 609 & n. 1 (D.D.C.1967), concerning the services rendered at the first trial as well as the second.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 F. Supp. 482, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-parker-dcd-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack