Court Opinion

ID: 9446005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:43:31.391866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:29.207411
License: Public Domain

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge,
(concurring) .
In all of the foregoing opinion, I concur. However, I think the fourth alternative under Section 751 (See 18 U.S.C.A. § 751) —“ * * * from any custody under or by virtue of any process issued under the laws of the United States by any court, judge, or commissioner * * * ” — would have been a sufficient basis for an indictment, rather than the harder ground chosen by the district attorney. It is not the case before us, but assuming there had been no contract with Los Angeles County to hold prisoners for the United States Bureau of Prisons, I am satisfied there would still have been a violation by Tucker of the statute when he took his own leave. I am sure that Judge Bone does not mean to imply that “custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative” is a necessary prerequisite to a violation, but lest someone think the indictment form here is always required, I add this dictum.