United States v. Richard Travis Kellar

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Richard Travis Kellar

416 F.2d 416

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 30, 1969

Docket23999

StatusPublished

This text of 416 F.2d 416 (United States v. Richard Travis Kellar) 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. Richard Travis Kellar, 416 F.2d 416 (9th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Kellar was convicted of stealing a car (Dyer Act), largely on circumstantial evidence. His contention that the evidence was insufficient is without merit. The evidence was pretty good.

There was a delay of two years and seven months from indictment to trial. So, it is said he did not get his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Of course, that depends on circumstances. Here, at the time of indictment, Kellar was in a Tennessee jail. Nevada had to stand in line behind Tennessee and Oklahoma to get him for trial. Once the Federal authorities had him back in Nevada, it was Kellar, or his counsel, who procured whatever real delay there was.

Obviously the three jurisdictions could not try Kellar simultaneously. His propensity for attracting the criminal processes in the several states, and not United States government sloth, delayed his Nevada trial. For that, we cannot hold the government responsible.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Kellar was convicted of stealing a car (Dyer Act), largely on circumstantial evidence. His contention that the evidence was insufficient is without merit. The evidence was pretty good.

There was a delay of two years and seven months from indictment to trial. So, it is said he did not get his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Of course, that depends on circumstances. Here, at the time of indictment, Kellar was in a Tennessee jail. Nevada had to stand in line behind Tennessee and Oklahoma to get him for trial. Once the Federal authorities had him back in Nevada, it was Kellar, or his counsel, who procured whatever real delay there was.

Obviously the three jurisdictions could not try Kellar simultaneously. His propensity for attracting the criminal processes in the several states, and not United States government sloth, delayed his Nevada trial. For that, we cannot hold the government responsible.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

416 F.2d 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-richard-travis-kellar-ca9-1969.