Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/330/450/115978/
Timestamp: 2019-10-15 00:00:28
Document Index: 340305807

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 4245', '§ 4241']

Carl Harvey Bistram and Arthur Earl Bistram, Appellants, v. People of the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, Appellees, 330 F.2d 450 (8th Cir. 1964) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Eighth Circuit › 1964 › Carl Harvey Bistram and Arthur Earl Bistram, Appellants, v. People of the State of Minnesota, County...
Carl Harvey Bistram and Arthur Earl Bistram, Appellants, v. People of the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, Appellees, 330 F.2d 450 (8th Cir. 1964)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - 330 F.2d 450 (8th Cir. 1964) April 21, 1964
1. Carl filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate the kidnapping judgment on the ground that the indictment was defective. The trial court denied this motion. 139 F. Supp. 922 (D.N.D. 1956). Carl then filed a second § 2255 motion to vacate the same judgment on the grounds of coercion in his plea, deprival of effective assistance of counsel, and innocence. This motion was denied by the trial court without a hearing. This court affirmed the denial of the first motion but reversed the denial of the second. Bistram v. United States, 237 F.2d 243 (8 Cir. 1956).
3. Meanwhile, Arthur had filed his § 2255 motion asserting lack of jurisdiction, deprival of constitutional rights, improper venue, and procedural wrongs. This motion was denied by the trial court. 153 F. Supp. 816 (D.N.D. 1957). This court affirmed. Bistram v. United States, 253 F.2d 610 (8 Cir. 1958).
4. Carl filed his third § 2255 motion. This time he asserted mental incompetency at the times he entered his plea of guilty and was sentenced. The motion was denied by the trial court without prejudice either to its renewal when properly supported by affidavits and documents or to the institution of appropriate measures under 18 U.S.C.A. § 4245. Bistram v. United States, 171 F. Supp. 258 (D.N.D. 1959).
5. Carl renewed his motion. The trial court first reserved disposition of it pending the possible filing of a report and certificate under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 and 4245. When nothing of this kind was filed (the director of the Bureau of Prisons did present an affidavit denying the existence of any significant evidence of mental disorder during the period of Carl's federal incarceration) the motion was denied. 180 F. Supp. 501 (D.N.D. 1960). Again this court affirmed, but with one dissent. Bistram v. United States, 283 F.2d 1 (8 Cir. 1960). Certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court, 366 U.S. 921, 81 S. Ct. 1096, 6 L. Ed. 2d 243.
The Sixth Amendment guaranty of a speedy trial is, of course, a recognized and valuable right. United States v. Chase, 135 F. Supp. 230, 232 (N.D. Ill. 1955). This court has held that confinement in a federal penal institution cannot be used to deny the prisoner's right to a speedy trial on another federal charge. Frankel v. Woodrough, 7 F.2d 796, 798-99 (8 Cir. 1925); McCarty v. United States District Court, 19 F.2d 462 (8 Cir. 1927). See Smith v. Settle, 211 F. Supp. 514, 515 (W.D. Mo. 1962). A corresponding state rule has been recognized and applied, under constitutional or statutory provisions, by the great majority of courts with respect to a state prisoner and another charge by the same state. See, for example, Arrowsmith v. State, 131 Tenn. 480, 175 S.W. 545, L. R.A.1915E, 363 (1915); People v. Prosser, 309 N.Y. 353, 130 N.E.2d 891, 57 A.L.R.2d 295 (1955); Commonwealth v. Hanley, 337 Mass. 384, 149 N.E.2d 608, 66 A.L.R.2d 222 (1958), cert. denied 358 U.S. 850, 79 S. Ct. 79, 3 L. Ed. 2d 85; State v. McTague, 173 Minn. 153, 216 N.W. 787 (1927); 118 A.L.R. 1037.
But when we have confinement in a state institution, accompanied by a pending federal charge against the prisoner, or the reverse circumstance of a federal confinement, accompanied by a pending state charge, "a spirit of reciprocal comity" is required. Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 259, 42 S. Ct. 309, 66 L. Ed. 607 (1922). The fact that an accused is in prison does not by itself make him immune from the second prosecution. At the same time, when a person accused by one sovereign is already incarcerated in the prison of the other, the authorities of the former are under no obligation to institute proceedings for the removal of the prisoner for trial on the pending charge. This court has recently so held in a case brought by a state prisoner with respect to a federal arrest warrant, Crow v. United States, 323 F.2d 888, 891 (8 Cir. 1963), where it was said that "the prisoner has no absolute right to a removal from state custody to stand trial on a federal charge," and, again, in proceedings by federal prisoners with respect to state charges, McWhorter v. Kennedy, 324 F.2d 793 (8 Cir. 1963), and Potter v. Missouri, 325 F.2d 525 (8 Cir. 1963). See State v. Hall, 266 Minn. 74, 123 N.W.2d 116 (1963), and State v. Larkin, 256 Minn. 314, 98 N.W.2d 70, 71 (1959).