United States v. Scott Williams

611 F.2d 914, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11214, 1979 WL 200334
CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit
DecidedOctober 12, 1979
DocketMisc. 79-8102
StatusPublished
Cited by46 cases

This text of 611 F.2d 914 (United States v. Scott Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First 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. Scott Williams, 611 F.2d 914, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11214, 1979 WL 200334 (1st Cir. 1979).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee Williams was arrested on September 26, 1979 pursuant to a warrant issued by a United States Magistrate in Boston. The warrant was issued on the basis of a telegraphic communication from the Government of Canada to the Department of State requesting the extradition of Williams to face a charge of conspiracy to import a narcotic. A hearing before a magistrate to determine whether appellee should be extradited has been scheduled for October 31,1979. On October 4, the district court ordered appellee released on bail pending the hearing. On October 5, a judge of this court stayed that order.

In a case involving foreign extradition, bail should not be granted absent “special circumstances.” Wright v. Henkel, 190 U.S. 40, 63, 23 S.Ct. 781, 47 L.Ed. 948 (1903); Beaulieu v. Hartigan, 554 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1977). Here, the district court reasoned that the special circumstances rule should be confined to cases where the question of extradition has been resolved after a hearing. The court held in the alternative that special circumstances had been shown, inasmuch as appellee’s brother, facing an extradition hearing on the same charge in the Southern District of New York, has been released on bail over the government’s objection.

The district court erred in limiting the “special circumstances” rule to post-hearing bail applications. Wright v. Henkel itself was a case of pre-hearing confinement, 190 U.S. at 41, 57, 23 S.Ct. 781, a fact which, the Court ruled, did not distinguish it from post-hearing bail applications. Id. *915 at 62, 23 S.Ct. 781. See also In re Klein, 46 F.2d 85 (S.D.N.Y. 1930), United States ex rel. McNamara v. Henkel, 46 F.2d 84 (S.D. N.Y. 1912) (pre-hearing bail denied in absence of special circumstances); In re Mitchell, 171 F. 289 (S.D.N.Y. 1909) (L. Hand, J.) (pre-hearing bail granted upon showing of special circumstances). We have discovered no cases confining Wright v. Henkel to post-hearing bail applications. 1

Nor do we think that the circumstance that appellee’s brother has been released on bail is sufficiently “special” to permit appellee’s release. Previous cases have limited “special circumstances” to situations where “the justification is pressing as well as plain,” In re Klein, supra, or “in the most pressing circumstances, and when the requirements of justice are absolutely peremptory.” In re Mitchell, supra. Such circumstances may include a delayed extradition hearing, see McNamara, supra, and the need of the defendant to consult with his attorney in a civil action upon which his “whole fortune” depends, Mitchell, supra. In contrast, the discomfiture of jail, Klein, supra, and even applicant’s arguable acceptability as a tolerable bail risk, cf. Beaulieu v. Hartigan, 430 F.Supp. 915 (D.Mass.), rev’d mem. 553 F.2d 92 (1st Cir. 1977), are not special circumstances. In the present case, while it may appear unfair that appellee should remain incarcerated while his brother is released on bail, such inequality of treatment does not constitute a sufficiently grave special circumstance to justify bail.

The order of the district court is reversed. 2 Mandate to issue forthwith.

1

. Beaulieu v. Hartigan, 554 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1977), involved an appeal from the district court’s denial of habeas corpus and granting of bail following an extradition hearing. Its language stating that bail should be limited to “special circumstances” therefore arguably applies only in the post-hearing context. The published opinion in Beaulieu, however, followed a stay and a reversal of a district court order of bail in a pre-hearing context. See Beaulieu v. Hartigan, 430 F.Supp. 915 (D.Mass.), rev’d mem. 553 F.2d 92 (1st Cir. 1977). The unqualified language in Beaulieu, 554 F.2d 1, should therefore be read to apply to pre-hearing bail applications as well.

2

. The district court remains free following remand to expedite the extradition hearing, if feasible.

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

Related

Molina v. United States
D. Nebraska, 2024
Taylor v. McDermott
D. Massachusetts, 2020
In re the Extradition of Antonowicz
244 F. Supp. 3d 1066 (C.D. California, 2017)
In re the Extradition of Drumm
150 F. Supp. 3d 92 (D. Massachusetts, 2015)
Nezirovic v. Holt
990 F. Supp. 2d 594 (W.D. Virginia, 2013)
In Re the Extradition of Garcia
761 F. Supp. 2d 468 (S.D. Texas, 2010)
United States v. Castaneda-Castillo
739 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D. Massachusetts, 2010)
United States v. Wroclawski
574 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (D. Arizona, 2008)
United States v. Zarate
492 F. Supp. 2d 514 (D. Maryland, 2007)
In Re the Extradition of Santos
473 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (C.D. California, 2006)
In Re the Extradition of Orozco
268 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (D. Arizona, 2003)
In Re the Extradition of Molnar
182 F. Supp. 2d 684 (N.D. Illinois, 2002)
Hababou v. Albright
82 F. Supp. 2d 347 (D. New Jersey, 2000)
In Re the Extradition of Gonzalez
52 F. Supp. 2d 725 (W.D. Louisiana, 1999)
Giancarlo Parretti v. United States
122 F.3d 758 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
Matter of Extradition of Rovelli
977 F. Supp. 566 (D. Connecticut, 1997)
United States v. Kirby
106 F.3d 855 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Kin-Hong
First Circuit, 1996

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
611 F.2d 914, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11214, 1979 WL 200334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-scott-williams-ca1-1979.