From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boone v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Jun 3, 1960
280 F.2d 911 (6th Cir. 1960)

Opinion

No. 13965.

June 3, 1960.

Calvin C. Johnson, Cincinnati, Ohio (Appointed by the court), for appellant.

William B. Jones, U.S. Atty., and James C. Jernigan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Louisville, Ky., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, WEICK and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges.


This case came on to be heard, appellant being represented by counsel appointed by the court, and an Assistant United States Attorney appearing for the United States.

The charge that appellant was not represented adequately by his self-chosen attorney is not supported: on the contrary, it appears from the order and memorandum opinion of United States District Judge Shelbourne, 185 F. Supp. 411, that the petitioner's self-chosen counsel "rendered effective service."

On the other point argued by the appellant, that he did not have a preliminary hearing before the United States Commissioner, there is no necessity for such hearing after a grand jury has returned an indictment, as was the case here. As was said by Judge Parker in Barber v. United States, 4 Cir., 142 F.2d 805, 807: "The only purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence against an accused to warrant his being held for action by a grand jury; and, after a bill of indictment has been found, there is no occasion for such hearing." Cf. Garrison v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 104 F.2d 128; James et al. v. Lawrence, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 355, 176 F.2d 18.

The order of the district court is affirmed.


Summaries of

Boone v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Jun 3, 1960
280 F.2d 911 (6th Cir. 1960)
Case details for

Boone v. United States

Case Details

Full title:Roy Levi BOONE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Jun 3, 1960

Citations

280 F.2d 911 (6th Cir. 1960)

Citing Cases

United States v. Mulligan

There is no constitutional requirement for such an examination. United States v. Smith, 343 F.2d 847 [6…

United States v. Universita

Thus, the reason for such a preliminary examination ceases to exist once a grand jury has acted and returned…