ROSCOE v. UNITED STATES

No. 9934.

148 F.2d 333 (1945)

ROSCOE v. UNITED STATES.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Writ of Certiorari Denied June 18, 1945.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

W. Massey Foley, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.

Vincent Fordell, of Detroit, Mich. (John C. Lehr and Vincent Fordell, both of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellee.

Before SIMONS, ALLEN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


Writ of Certiorari Denied June 18, 1945. See 65 S.Ct. 1581.

PER CURIAM.

It appears that on July 30, 1942, appellant was arraigned before the presiding Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, to answer charges contained in an indictment of five counts, each charging a violation of Title 12, U.S.C. § 588b (a) (b), 12 U.S.C.A. § 588b (a), (b), and that appellant plead guilty to each of the counts and was sentenced to serve twenty-five years on each of four counts, with the sentence on two counts to run concurrently and on two counts to run consecutively.

On February 17, 1943, the trial court vacated the sentences under three of the four counts and left remaining a sentence of twenty-five years on one count, which appellant is now serving. On September 3, 1943, appellant filed in the original action a motion to vacate the sentence and judgment and to grant him a new trial, which motion was denied. The ground of the motion is that while appellant was being held in custody in violation of Title 18, U.S.C. § 595, 18 U.S.C.A. § 595, a confession of the crimes charged in the indictment was extorted from him and that notwithstanding the fact that at the time of his arraignment he stated to the court that he understood the charges against him and that he did not desire counsel and that he plead guilty voluntarily, he claims the judgment of the court is void because of his confession illegally obtained.

Appellant relies on McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L. Ed. 819. The rule of this case is confined to situations where the confession illegally obtained is introduced in evidence. It does not give immunity from the result of a plea of guilty voluntarily made in open court after the defendant on inquiry from the presiding Judge has stated that he does not desire the advice and assistance of counsel and that he understands the charges laid in the indictment and voluntarily pleads guilty. The order of the District Court is sustained.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases