United States v. Rutkin

Third Circuit

United States v. Rutkin

200 F.2d 607, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2341

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedDecember 23, 1952

Docket10795_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 F.2d 607 (United States v. Rutkin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third 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. Rutkin, 200 F.2d 607, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2341 (3d Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, James Rutkin, who is now confined to jail, pending the disposition of his appeal, he having elected not to serve his sentence, has made application to this court for bail to the end that he may have an operation for a duodenal ulcer. The motion came on for hearing on December 15, 1952, but we delayed final hearing of it until December 18, 1952, so that we might have the advantage of medical reports concerning Rutkin’s condition not available at the earlier date. In addition we have now had the opportunity of hearing Dr. Francis Hamill who testified to Rutkin’s present condition in open court.

Upon consideration of the medical reports and Dr. Hamill’s testimony, we conclude that Rutkin is in need of an operation if his health is to be preserved. An earlier application to this, court for bail on the ground that a substantial queslion was raised by the appeal was considered by this court, sitting by another panel, and was denied. We will not review the issue as to whether a substantial question is presented by the appeal.

After careful consideration we have decided not to grant bail as sought by the present application. We do not now pass upon the question as to whether there is inherent power in this court to grant bail so that a convicted defendant may have an operation necessary to preserve his life or health. See the dictum in Wright v. Henkel, 1903, 190 U.S. 40, 23 S.Ct. 781, 47 L.Ed. 948. Cf. United States ex rel. Carapa v. Curran, 2 Cir., 1924, 297 F. 946, 36 A.L.R. 877; In re Gannon, D.C.E.D.Pa.1928, 27 F.2d 362; and Principe v. Ault, D.C.N.D.Ohio 1945, 62 F. Supp. 279. As presently advised we conclude that the medical regulations, in particular Section 708.01, as prepared by the Attorney General of the United States and set out in the United States Marshals Manual, permitting medical treatment of prisoners, are sufficient to. enable Rutkin to un *608 dergo the necessary operation with safety. The relief sought by Rutkin seemingly may be achieved without the interposition of this court.

Accordingly, the supplemental motion for bail will be denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, James Rutkin, who is now confined to jail, pending the disposition of his appeal, he having elected not to serve his sentence, has made application to this court for bail to the end that he may have an operation for a duodenal ulcer. The motion came on for hearing on December 15, 1952, but we delayed final hearing of it until December 18, 1952, so that we might have the advantage of medical reports concerning Rutkin’s condition not available at the earlier date. In addition we have now had the opportunity of hearing Dr. Francis Hamill who testified to Rutkin’s present condition in open court.

Upon consideration of the medical reports and Dr. Hamill’s testimony, we conclude that Rutkin is in need of an operation if his health is to be preserved. An earlier application to this, court for bail on the ground that a substantial queslion was raised by the appeal was considered by this court, sitting by another panel, and was denied. We will not review the issue as to whether a substantial question is presented by the appeal.

After careful consideration we have decided not to grant bail as sought by the present application. We do not now pass upon the question as to whether there is inherent power in this court to grant bail so that a convicted defendant may have an operation necessary to preserve his life or health. See the dictum in Wright v. Henkel, 1903, 190 U.S. 40, 23 S.Ct. 781, 47 L.Ed. 948. Cf. United States ex rel. Carapa v. Curran, 2 Cir., 1924, 297 F. 946, 36 A.L.R. 877; In re Gannon, D.C.E.D.Pa.1928, 27 F.2d 362; and Principe v. Ault, D.C.N.D.Ohio 1945, 62 F. Supp. 279. As presently advised we conclude that the medical regulations, in particular Section 708.01, as prepared by the Attorney General of the United States and set out in the United States Marshals Manual, permitting medical treatment of prisoners, are sufficient to. enable Rutkin to un *608 dergo the necessary operation with safety. The relief sought by Rutkin seemingly may be achieved without the interposition of this court.

Accordingly, the supplemental motion for bail will be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 F.2d 607, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rutkin-ca3-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack