2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-31-2005 

# In Re: B arry P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-4381

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: B arry " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1112. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1112HP S
– 8 7 ( Ap r i l , 2 0 0 5 ) NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 04- 4381

_______________ 

### IN RE: AR TH UR

BA RRY, Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof the V i r gi n I s l ands ( R el at ed t o C i vi l A pp. N o. 04- cv- 00054)

_____________________________________ Sub mi t t e d Unde rRul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

A pr i l 29, 2005 B E FO R E : SC I R I C A C hi ef J udge, W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges Fi l ed M ay31, 2005

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C U R I A M.

A ft era j ur yt r i al i n t he Ter r i t or i al C our tfort he U . S. V i r gi n I s l ands , A r t hur O . B arry , Jr. w as c o n v ict ed o f in v o lun tarym an slau g h ter an d sen tenc ed to a f ive-y ea r t erm of i m pr i s onm ent . H e al s o w as found notgui l t ybyr eas on of i ns ani t yon char ges of a ttem p ted f

irst d e g re e m u rd e r, an d f irst a n d se c o n d d e g re e a rso n , an d w a s c o m m itt e d u n til h e re g aine d a so u n d ca p ac ityfo r j u d g m en t pu rsua n t t o V . I. C o d e T it le 5, § 3 6 3 7 (a) & (b).

B a rr yf ile d a p e titio n f

o r w ri t o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s in th e T e rr ito ri a l C o u rt . Fi r s t , t he Ter r i t or i al C our tdeni ed the pet i t i on. B arr ym oved forr econs i der at i on, and theT e rr ito ri a l C o u rt re c o n s id e re d its d e c is io n a n d g ra n te d re c o n s id e ra tio n . See Barr y v. P hi l l i ps , C i v. N o. 625/ 03 ( V . I . T err . C t . M ar ch 9, 2004) ( A ppendi x at145- 51) . T he T errit o ri al C o u rtalso o rde red the g o v ern m en t t o sh o w ca u se w h ythe re li ef B arry re q u e s te d s h o u ld n o t b e g ra n te d . S e e id . T hen, on M ar ch 12, 2004, aft era hea r i ng, t he T err i t or i al C our tdi s m i s s ed B arr y ’ s pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus beca us e B arr yhad a n a d e q u a te re m e d ya t la w in th e u n d e rl y in g c ri m in a l p ro c e e d in g s . See T r ans cr i ptof M arc h 1 2 , 2 0 0 4 h ea ri n g (A p p en d ix at 1 6 6 -72 ).

B arr yappea l ed fr om t he M ar ch 12, 2004 or derdi s m i s s i ng hi s pet i t i on t o t he D i stri ctC ou rtfor t he V i rgi n Isl and s. O n Jun e 3, 20 04 , he m ov ed fo r i m m ediat e rel ease fro m cu stod yp en d ing ap p ea l pu rsua n t t o F ed era l R u le of A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 2 3 . In N o v e m b e r, h e f

iled a p e tit io n f

o r w rit o f

m a n d a m u s in th is C o u rt, se e k in g a n o rd e r to compel t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o rul e on hi s m ot i on fori m m edi at e r el eas e.

B arr y ’ s m andamus pr ocee di ng w as di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o pr os ecut e on D e c e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 4 , b e c a u se h e d id n o t p a yth e f e e s o r f ile a c o m p lete a p p lica tio n to pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u

p e ris . H e then fi l ed a “ m ot i on t o r eopen [ hi s ] cas e forexpedi t ed r evi ew , ” as w el l as a compl et e appl i cat i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris , w hi ch has been gr ant ed. B arr yhas t i m el ys how n good caus e t o r eopen hi s cas e, s o hi s m ot i on t o r eopen is g ra n te d . H o w e v e r, h is p e titio n f o r w ri t o f

m a n d a m u s w ill b e d e n ie d . M a n d a m u s is a n e x tr a o rd in a ry re m e d y . S e e Ke rrv . U .S . D ist. C t. , 42 6 U. S. 394, 402 ( 1976) . W i t hi n t he di s cr et i on of the i s s ui ng cour t , m andamus tr adi t i onal l ym ay be “us ed . . . onl y‘ t o confi ne an i nfer i orcour tt o a l aw ful exer ci s e of i t s pr es cr i bedj ur i s di ct i on ort o compel i tt o exer ci s e i t s author i tyw hen i ti s i t s dut yt o do s o. ’ ” I d. ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . A pet i t i onerm us ts how “‘ no ot heradequa t e means t o at t ai n t he des i r ed r el i ef, and . . . a r i ghtt o t he w r i t[that ] i s cl earand i ndi s put abl e. ’ ” See In re P at enaude , 2 1 0 F .3 d 1 3 5 , 1 4 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ).

B a rrya rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt h a s u n d u lyd e layed in d e c id in g h is m ot i on fori m m edi at e r el eas e. A l t hough an appe l l at e courtm ayi s s ue a w r i tof m andamus w hen an undue del ayi n adj udi cat i on can be cons i der ed a f ai l ur e t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on th a t r is e s to th e le v e l o f a d u e p ro c e s s v io la tio n , see M adden v. M

yers , 102 F. 3d 74, 79 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ), a w rit o f

m a n d a m u s is n o t ap p ro p ria te h e re . B a rry ’s m o tio n f o r im m e d iate r el eas e fr om cus t odyw as anci l l aryt o hi s appea l fr om t he Ter r i t or i al C our t ’ s or der di s m i s s i ng hi s pet i t i on. O n D ece m ber13, 2004, t he D i s t r i ctC our tcons i der ed hi s appea l and det erm i ned thati tcoul d notr eac h t he mer i t s att hatt i m e bec aus e B arr yhad not ob t ai ned a cert i fi cat e of p robable cause for app eal . T he D i stri ctC ou rtrem and ed the case to th e T e rrito ria l C o u rt f o r a d e ter m in a tio n w h e th e r a c e rtific a te o f p ro b a b le c a u se sh o u ld i s s ue. T he del ayi n adj udi cat i on of B arr y ’ s m ot i on i s nota fa i l ur e t o exer ci s e pr es cr i bed ju risd ictio n . T h e d e lay i s m e re lya c o n se q u e n c e o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s c o m p lian c e w ith t he V i r gi n I s l ands R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e, s ee V .I.R .A .P . 1 4 (2 0 0 5 ).

A c c o rd in g ly, th e P e titio n f o r M a n d a m u s w ill b e d e n ie d .