Court Opinion

ID: 9460756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:59:34.617613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:46.119552
License: Public Domain

SWYGERT, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I join in Judge Stevens’ dissent from the holding that the en banc rehearing was improvidently ordered. As my Brother demonstrates, the fact that a new national rule governing criminal procedure in the district courts would require reasons for the dispensation of a presentenee report may be in the offing or that the Parole Board may ameliorate any injustice visited on Gino Roseiano is a poor excuse for avoiding a frontal examination of the procedure adopted by the judge in this case. In fact, it is no excuse at all because as far as Roseiano is concerned, the new rule will not benefit him and the hope that the Parole Board may rectify any injustice is exactly that, a hope, and not as Judge Stevens so. adequately illustrates, an assurance. Courts should be ever sensitive to the rights and liberties of individuals. Rosciano’s liberty is at stake — not the salutary effect of some future rule, nor the suggestion that the Parole Board may right a wrong which may have resulted from what seems to me an extreme disparity of sentences in this case.