Court Opinion

ID: 9446904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:21:02.454935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:49.430781
License: Public Domain

BARNES, Circuit Judge.
Appellant was sentenced to a period of six years in a federal penitentiary after conviction by a jury on an indictment charging him with knowing possession of property stolen from a vessel engaged in interstate commerce.1 No question is raised on this appeal as to the eviden-tiary basis of the conviction or sentence. The record before this Court is.» sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty, if the proceedings in the district court were proper.
The single question raised here is the validity of the organization of the court on July 31st, 1956, the day upon which the proceedings opened. The proceedings occurred in San Francisco, within one of the courtrooms regularly used by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division. The regular jury venire were present.
Presiding was a duly and regularly appointed, commissioned, and sworn federal judge of the District Court of New York located within the Second Circuit. He had been duly and regularly assigned by proper authority “to hold the District Court in the Northern District of California during the period beginning August 1, 1956, and ending August 31, 1956.”
This ease of United States v. Leary had been originally set down on July 3, 1956 for a jury trial on July 30, 1956 by the District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California then presiding over criminal cases in the Southern Division.2 On July 30th, 1956, the Chief Judge of that same Northern District of California, then presiding over the criminal calendar, had duly and regularly continued the trial of the case before a jury to July 31st, 1956.
Reporting for his judicial duties one day early, and on July 31st, 1956, to Chief Judge Louis Goodman of the United States District Court in San Francisco, the New' York District Judge, with the apparent or express consent of Judge Goodman, was assigned a courtroom in which to preside over a regular session of the Northern California District Court. On that same July 31st, 1956, the court’s docket shows that case No. 34992, United States v. John Leary, was “Ord. assigned to J.- [specifying the New York Judge by name] for Jury Trial. Goodman.” The trial of the charge against Leary proceeded. Twelve persons were found qualified and placed in the jury box. The customary form of oath was administered to them as to a jury panel. The judge presiding thereafter, and before the introduction of any evidence, suggested to counsel after the jury had left the room that his official designation called for him to hold court in the Northern District of California commencing August 1, 1956. He said he could get the assignment amended by a nunc pro tunc order, so as to authorize him to hold court on July 31, 1956. He said, “Officially I am supposed to start tomorrow morning, but actually we selected the jury and are starting today.” He then asked defendant to waive any contention “with respect to my having started a day early” and added “that actually the trial is commenced one day *625prior to my official designation to sit in this District Court.”
The attorney for defendant stated on behalf of defendant that he would waive any defects and that the procedure would redound to the advantage of defendant since he had been in custody a considerable time. The judge presiding then asked defendant if he understood, if he was agreeable, and if he waived any objection, to which the latter responded that he did. Thereafter, on that same day, an opening statement was made by the government attorney, the defense reserving its statement to the end of the ease. Three witnesses were then sworn seriatim and each testified.
On August 1st and 2nd, 1956, the proceeding was continued before the same twelve persons and the same judge. The twelve persons returned a verdict of guilty. Judgment was entered thereon.
A sentence of Leary to six years imprisonment followed on August 16, 1956.
There can be no question that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division, was the proper court in which to try the appellant. That court, qua, court, had subject matter jurisdiction of the offense charged. Whether the visiting judge was on July 31st, 1956, a proper judge to hold that trial in that court is the question crucial to this appeal.
Whatever powers and authority the New York judge had to sit in San Francisco arose out of six factors: (a) His judicial capacity; (b) the statute authorizing his assignment, 28 U.S.C. § 292 (c) ;3 (c) the Chief Justice’s designation4 to sit in California; (d) the statute defining his powers and duties on such assignment, 28 U.S.C. § 296;5 (e) *626the assignment of the case to him by the Chief Judge of the District Court in California; and (f) whether or not he was, if not a de jure judge, a de facto judge the first day of the trial.
No question is here raised as to the judge’s complete authority to act in his judicial capacity within his district court in New York, and we need not consider it here, save to state the fact that he was so authorized and had been for several years.6
Nor is any question here raised that any of the statutory conditions respecting the designation and assignment were not complied with (excepting for the moment the date when the assigned duties were to commence). We must, and are entitled, to assume that the consent of the Chief Judge, or the Judicial Council, of the Second Circuit had been obtained; and that the designation and assignment had been filed with the clerks of the courts from which and to which made.'7 The law requires this, and it is presumed the law was obeyed.
There likewise exists no question as to the authority of Congress generally to enact statutes authorizing assignment of a federal judge from one area to another. See, Lamar v. United States, 1916, 241 U.S. 103, 117-118, 36 S.Ct. 535, 60 L.Ed. 912; McDowell v. United States, 1895, 159 U.S. 596, 598-599, 16 S.Ct. 111, 40 L.Ed. 271.
The district courts of the United States derive their power, not from the Constitution, but from the statutory enactments of Congress: “District courts are solely the creation of statute, and the place in which a judge thereof may exercise jurisdiction is subject absolutely to the control of congress.” McDowell v. United States, supra [16 S.Ct. 112].
The purposes of § 292(c) and § 296 are to aid litigants to avoid that of which defendants in criminal cases complain most loudly — delays in trial. To accomplish this, and to make the work load more even throughout the country, was the purpose behind the legislation.8 To aid in the accomplishment of that purpose, we should, where construction is necessary, liberally construe the statutes. S. E. C. v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp., 1943, 320 U.S. 344, 350-351, 64 S.Ct. 120, 88 L.Ed. 88; Stewart v. Kahn, 1870, 11 Wall 493, 505, 78 U.S. 493, 505, 20 L.Ed. 176; Seasongood v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 1955, 227 F.2d 907; Adler v. Northern Hotel Co., 7 Cir., 1949, 175 F.2d 619; United States v. Public Utilities Comm., 1945, 80 U.S. App.D.C. 227, 151 F.2d 609; Binkley Mining Co. v. Wheeler, 8 Cir., 1943, 133 F.2d 863, 871.
Appellant urges that the Frad 9 case is controlling, and requires reversal here. In Frad v. Kelly, supra, Judge Inch, a duly appointed District Judge of the Eastern District of New York, was regularly assigned to the Southern District of New York. On this assignment, he regularly tried Frad before a jury. Upon conviction, the judge sentenced Frad to imprisonment on one indictment and suspended imposition of sentence on two other indictments for a definite period. When Frad had served sentence on the first indictment and before the probation period expired, he petitioned Judge Inch for discharge. The United States Attorney for the Southern District stipulated that Judge Inch might hear a subsequent motion in the Southern District, and the probation officer of that District, by appearing at a hearing before Judge Inch in the Eastern District, gave implied consent. Judge Inch entered an order *627revoking probation, discharging Frad from further supervision and terminating the proceedings against him.
About a year later a judge of the Southern District authorized a warrant upon a charge of violation of the terms of the probation. Frad surrendered himself to the marshal, and later a judge of the Southern District granted habeas corpus as to Frad on the theory that the discharge by Judge Inch was valid. The court of appeals reversed, holding the Inch order void. Kelly v. United States ex rel. Frad, 2 Cir., 1937, 89 F.2d 866. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding that the discharge of Frad by Judge Inch was null and void since the judge had no authority under the assignment statute “to hear a new matter even though that new matter may arise in the same case.”
Thus in the Frad case, a judge who had once been a regularly designated judge in one district and had decided a case therein, attempted to decide, in another district (in which he regularly sat), a new matter arising in the same case. He purported to act on a matter in a district where such matter was not then pending. This differs from the instant case where the assigned judge proposed to act in a matter which was then properly within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
In Frad the critical decision to terminate probation was rendered by a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The question presented to the Supreme Court was whether a judge of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, holding court in the Eastern District, could enter an order which only a judge (by appointment or assignment) of the District Court for the Southern District of New York had the statutory authority to enter. The Court rejected the theory that under a section similar to the last sentence of § 296, the presentation of a motion to terminate probation came within the assigned judge’s power to “decide or join in the decision and final disposition of all matters submitted to him during such period and for rehearing or further proceedings in such matters.” [Emphasis added.] The Court held instead that the matter submitted was new matter and therefore was required under the probation statute to be submitted to the court in which defendant had been sentenced. The latter court was, of course, the District Court for the Southern District of New York. A judge sitting by assignment in the Southern District is a judge of that district; but the same judge sitting back in his own district is not a judge of the Southern District and he could not, after his assignment had terminated, purport to act on a new matter relative to a case he decided during the period of his assignment.
In the instant case, however, the court which sought to exercise jurisdiction over appellant was the proper court. And the judge who empaneled the jury and conducted the proceeding was a duly sworn United States District Judge, a judicial officer moving under a proper and statutorily authorized designation to hold court in this Circuit in the Northern District of California, complete in all respects save as to the date he was to commence. He was, at the very least, a judge de facto of that court on July 31, 1956, the day before his designation authorized him to act. The defect existing was a mere formal defect in the date of his assignment. Such defects uniformly have been held no bar to the good faith exercise of judicial office by one lawfully vested with the powers of a judge.
“Though we are used to regard questions of jurisdiction as sharp and clear, the fact is otherwise. All valid rules of law are imperative; their violation is generally, though not always, a wrong for which in some form or other relief is usually open, if they result in substantial damage. But for obvious practical reasons not all errors go so far to the root as to make the whole proceeding a complete nullity; else the trouble and expense of litigation would go for nothing and contro*628versy never end. Therefore, the law will not scrutinize too nicely a judge’s warrant of authority; he may indeed have so little color of office as to stand like a mere interloper, but that is not ordinarily true, if, being duly qualified as a judge, some effort has been made to conform with the formal conditions on which his particular powers depend. The Supreme Court has several times refused to treat such conditions as essential to the validity of his acts. Ball v. United States, 140 U.S. 118, 11 S.Ct. 761, 35 L.Ed. 377; McDowell v. United States, 159 U.S. 596, 16 S.Ct. 111, 40 L.Ed. 271; Ex Parte Ward, 173 U.S. 452, 19 S.Ct. 459, 43 L.Ed. 765. * * * It is not wholly clear how far the conditions upon a judge’s qualifications may be absent and his acts still be immune from collateral attack. We have not that question before us; we mention the doctrine merely as showing the general indisposition of the law to demand of suitors any inquiry into the title of judges to their office, or into their authority to act in a particular cause.”
L. Hand, J., in Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 2 Cir., 1932, 61 F.2d 934, 938.
There is yet another reason why this appellant is in no position to complain about the propriety of his trial in the court below. As we construe § 292(c), it provides for the administrative performance by the Chief Justice of what amounts to little more than a ministerial act. That section does not impose strict jurisdictional requirements. It seeks only to encourage and enhance the speedy and efficient administration of justice in the various courts of the United States. To this end, and as the judge below noted, a nunc pro tunc order could have been obtained by the mere exchange of communication between San Francisco, New York, and Washington, D. C.10 The fully informed and intelligent waiver of such formal requirement by the defendant, his counsel, and counsel for the government was sufficient to perform, in effect, the office of such an order. See, Rakes v. United States, 4 Cir., 1947, 163 F.2d 771. Further, such conduct was sufficient to invest the judge below with that element of good faith required for invocation of the de facto judge doctrine. “The parties having consented to the hearing of the motion by Judge Hutch-eson [sitting without proper designation], we treat his finding as though it had been made after a proper statutory designation.” Rakes v. United States, supra, 163 F.2d at page 773.
A broad view of the statute is particularly appropriate where, as here, the defendant was adequately represented by competent counsel, where no rights have been denied him, and no prejudice against the defendant appears. Neither the requirements of justice nor the interests of this appellant require a contrary result.
The judgment below is affirmed.

. 18 U.S.C. § 059.

. At the en banc hearing of this matter, the government moved to augment the record by filing with this Court a copy of the full “Criminal Docket” relating to this case, as it appears in the records of said United States District Court for the Northern District of California, certified by the clerk of that court. That motion to augment the record, then taken under advisement, has heretofore been granted.

. 28 U.S.C. § 292(c) states: “The Chief Justice of the United States may designate and assign temporarily a district judge of one circuit for service in another circuit, cither in a district court or court of appeals, upon presentation of a certificate of necessity by the chief judge or circuit justice of the circuit wherein the need arises.”

. The designation is in part as follows:
“Designation of District Judge for Service in Another Circuit
“The Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit having certified that there is a necessity for the assignment of a judge from another circuit to perform the duties of district judge and hold a district court in the Northern District of California; and that the Chief Judge of the Second Circuit having consented to the designation and assignment of United States District Judge for the Southern District of New' York, in that Circuit, to hold the District Court in the Northern District of California during the period beginning August 1, 1956, and ending August 31, 1956, now, therefore, pursuant to the authority vested in me by Title 28, United States Code, Section 292(c), I do hereby designate and assign [him] . . . to perform the duties of district judge and hold a district court in the Northern District of California during the period beginning August 1, 1956, and ending August 31, 1956, and for such further time as may be required to complete unfinished business.
“Earl Warren,
Chief Justice of the United States. “Dated, Washington, D. C., July 13, 1956.
“Filed June 19, 1956,
C. W. Calbreath, Clerk”

. 28 U.S.C. § 296: “A justice or judge shall discharge, during the period of his designation and assignment, all judicial duties for which he is designated and assigned. He may be required to perform any duty which might be required of a judge of the court or district or circuit to which he is designated and assigned.
“Such justice or judge shall have all the powers of a judge of the court, circuit or district to which he is designated and assigned, except the power to appoint any person to a statutory position or to designate permanently a depositary of funds or a newspaper for publication of legal notices.
“A justice or judge who has sat by designation and assignment in another district or circuit may, notwithstanding his absence from such district or circuit or the expiration of the period of his designation and assignment, decide or join in the decision and final disposition of all matters submitted to him during such period and in the consideration and disposition of applications for rehearing or further proceedings in such matters.”

. Register, Department of Justice and the Courts of the United States 1959, p. 86.

. 28 U.S.C. § 295.

. A committee report covering a similar provision says:
“These provisions provide a method whereby the overall manpower of the Federal judiciary may be utilized to meet specific congested calendars.” H.R.Rep. No. 2348, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., 1956 U.S.Code Congressional and Administrative News, at page 3123.

. Frad v. Kelly, 1937, 302 U.S. 312, 58 S.Ct. 188, 191, 82 L.Ed. 282.

. 28 U.S.C. § 295.