Court Opinion

ID: 9447410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:34:31.176179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:01.917075
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.
Defendant seeks a rehearing in this-court and suggests that the rehearing-be held en banc.
Among the grounds urged for a rehearing is defendant’s assertion that this court has not decided whether defendant’s affidavit of bias was sufficient, to require the district judge’s disqualification.
The record shows the following relevant facts, or allegations thereof:
1959
April 3 Plea of not guilty entered.
May 18 Alleged conference held in trial judge’s chambers, without notice to defendant or his attorney of record, where assistant United States attorney assigned to trial of defendant’s case, and special agent Ralph A. Weber conferred with trial judge; that said Weber had conferences with defendant theretofore and was to be the principal witness against him; at said conference matters relating to the quantum, nature and theory of the government’s proof in this cause were discussed; that trial judge has evidenced a personal bias and prejudice against defendant.
June 17 Order setting case for trial Sept. 8, 1959.
*797August 25 Affidavit of defendant in support of his motion that trial judge reassign case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 144, supported by affidavit of defendant setting forth, inter alia, facts set forth, swpra, alleged to have occurred on May 18, 1959.
September 8 Order denying defendant’s motion to reassign case, etc. Trial started.
22 By leave of court defendant withdrew plea of not guilty, and, upon arraignment, pleaded guilty on counts 1, 2 and 3. Judgment of guilty entered.
We have no situation which suggests that the court was without jurisdiction in these proceedings. Whether the defendant had a right to require the trial judge to disqualify himself is another question. In his brief in this court his counsel contends, erroneously, I think, that this court has not ruled on whether his affidavit of bias was sufficient to require the court’s disqualification. It is not necessary for me to consider what position I would have taken as to this affidavit if I had been a member of the panel which decided this case. I am limited to voting upon the suggestion of a rehearing en banc. For that purpose I have examined the affidavit with great cai’e. Unfortunately for defendant, whose affidavit it is, I note a significant omission in the recital of facts. The affidavit fails to show when he first learned of the conference in chambers which he relies upon as the basis for his motion to transfer from the trial judge. However the affidavit, which was made on August 25, 1959, reveals that at or before that date he had knowledge of the facts charged therein. It follows, therefore, that he knew these facts on September 8, 1959 when his motion to transfer the case was denied and the trial started. It was not until September 22 that he interrupted the trial by withdrawing his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty whereupon the judgment appealed from was entered. It is apparent that with knowledge of the alleged facts he withheld action until the evidence at the trial developed unfavorably to him. If the court erred in denying his motion for transfer of the case, he waived that error by entering a plea of guilty, and he is now in no position to complain of the court’s action in that respect.
I have therefore voted to deny his suggestion for a rehearing en banc.