UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
WILLIAM BENNETT, APPELLANT
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's claims regarding pre-arrest and post-arrest delay, as well as the admissibility of post-arrest statements, were waived due to failure to object at trial.
Appellant was convicted of selling heroin. He appealed, arguing that significant delays between the offense and arrest, and between arrest and trial, …
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 Prejudice From Delay cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a judgment convicting appellant of selling heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 173 and 174.
Appellant claims that the delay of approximately one year between commission of the offense and arrest violated his right under the Fifth Amendment to a fair trial, and that a lapse of another year before trial violated his right under the Sixth Amendment to a speedy trial.
At no time before or during trial did appellant object to the pre-arrest or post-arrest delay. In D’Ercole v. United States, 361 F. 2d 211 (2d Cir. 1966) we held that such “an objection must be made at the latest at the time of trial, and perhaps even earlier * See United States v. Sanchez, 361 F. 2d 824 (2d Cir.1966).
After arrest, appellant did not press for an early trial; indeed, his request at trial part, where he was advised of his “right to have his case go forward promptly,” to return the case to calendar part, was partially responsible for the delay. Appellant’s detailed testimony as to the events that took place on the date of the commission of the offense indicates that he suffered no prejudice because of the delay. See United States v. Torres, 343 F. 2d 750, 751 (2d Cir. 1965).
Appellant also urges the inadmissibility of evidence as to certain post-arrest statements. Since appellant failed to object to admission of this evidence at the trial, the point is unavailable on appeal. See United States v. Indiviglio, 352 F. 2d 276 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 907, 86 S.Ct. 887, 15 L.Ed.2d 663 (1966).
The court wishes to express to Gerald J. Flintoft its gratitude for his conscientious and able handling of this appeal.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020 (1st Cir. 1987)
-
United States v. Honorable John F. Dooling, Jr., 406 F.2d 192 (2d Cir. 1969)
-
Benson v. United States, 402 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. 1968)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Indiviglio, 352 F.2d 276 (2d Cir. 1965)
- Campbell v. United States, 383 U.S. 907 (U.S. 1966)
- Fowler et ux. v. United States, 383 U.S. 907 (U.S. 1966)
- United States v. Sanchez, 361 F.2d 824 (2d Cir. 1966)
- D'Ercole v. United States, 361 F.2d 211 (2d Cir. 1966)
- United States v. Susanna Torres, 343 F.2d 750 (2d Cir. 1965)