Case Name: UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Sylvia BACON, Associate Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Respondent
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1981-03-17
Citations: 428 A.2d 852
Docket Number: No. 80-407
Parties: UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Sylvia BACON, Associate Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Respondent.
Judges: Before NEWMAN, Chief Judge, KELLY, Associate Judge, and GALLAGHER, Associate Judge, Retired.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 428
Pages: 852–857

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Sylvia BACON, Associate Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Respondent.
No. 80-407.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Argued April 30, 1980.
Decided March 17, 1981.
Harold Damelin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom Charles F. C. Ruff, U. S. Atty., John A. Terry, Michael W. Farrell, Richard C. Otto, and Paul N. Murphy, Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on the petition for writ of mandamus.
Barry F. Kowalski, Washington, D.C., for respondent Perkins.
W. Gary Kohlman, Public Defender Service, Washington, D.C., with whom Silas J. Wasserstrom, Public Defender Service, Washington, D.C., was on the response to the petition.
Before NEWMAN, Chief Judge, KELLY, Associate Judge, and GALLAGHER, Associate Judge, Retired.
Judge Gallagher was an Associate Judge of the court at the time of argument. His status changed to Associate Judge, Retired, on February 27, 1981.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
On March 18, 1980, Judge Sylvia Bacon entered orders which granted, in part, the defendants' preindictment request for discovery. The government has petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial judge to vacate her orders on the ground that she had no authority, inherent or under Super.Ct.Cr.R. 16, to direct the government to afford discovery to persons who have been detained but not indicted. On notice to the court, while the petition was pending, that the defendants had been indicted, we issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as moot. The government filed a response urging a decision on the petition.
We conclude that the issue presented in this case, while theoretically capable of repetition, is not likely to evade review. We say this for the same reason that we would deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Where there is an available procedure, even short of contempt, to bring a serious, vigorously disputed matter before this court, on a direct appeal, see Holmes v. United States, D.C.App., 343 A.2d 272, rehearing denied, 346 A.2d 517 (1975), issuance of the extraordinary writ of mandamus is inappropriate and impermissible. Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967). Since the issue may readily be brought before this court for review in a proper case, the instant petition is dismissed as moot.
So ordered.
At that time, the defendants had been detained on two complaints since October 10, 1979, but had yet to be indicted.