FRANCIS JARAD SCHULTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant waived his right to a preliminary examination and that even if he did not, the subsequent indictment by a grand jury cured any omission.
The United States prosecuted Francis Jarad Schultz for interstate transportation of forged checks. Schultz was found guilty by a jury and sentenced. H…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Grand Jury Indictment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The United States prosecuted Francis Jarad Schultz on a three-count indictment charging interstate transportation of falsely made and forged checks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. After a federal district court jury found Schultz guilty, the district court, on April 9, 1965, imposed concurrent sentences of three years’ imprisonment on each count. Schultz appeals.
We have carefully considered all of the appellant’s contentions. Only one deserves brief comment. Schultz argues that he was denied the preliminary examination required by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 The record shows that on the day of his arrest, January 15, 1965, Schultz appeared before a United States commissioner in New Orleans. There Schultz signed a form which in part stated that the commissioner:
[has] informed me of the charge and of my right to retain counsel and to have a hearing and to execute a waiver thereof, [and I] do hereby waive a hearing before the aforementioned commissioner and consent to the issuance of a warrant for my removal to the Middle district of Florida where the aforesaid charge is pending against me.
The commissioner’s order of commitment, also dated January 15, 1965, states that Schultz “duly waived preliminary examination.”
The record therefore indicates that Schultz waived preliminary examination. Even if he waived only the removal hearing, as counsel on appeal contends, his subsequent indictment by a federal grand jury cures the alleged omission of a preliminary hearing. See United States v. Gray, D.D.C. 1949, 87 F.Supp. 436.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. Paragraph (c) of Rule 5 reads in part as follows:
“Preliminary Examination. The defendant shall not he called upon to plead. If the defendant waives preliminary examination, the commissioner shall forthwith hold him to answer in the district court. If the defendant does not waive examination, the commissioner shall hear the evidence within a reasonable time. The defendant may cross-examine witnesses against him and may introduce evidence in his own behalf. * * * ”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schultz v. United States, 384 F.2d 374 (5th Cir. 1967)
-
United States v. Hill, 442 F.2d 259 (5th Cir. 1971)
-
Grant v. United States, 406 F.2d 1295 (5th Cir. 1969)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence