WESLEY WALKER, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
CHARLES M. RODGERS ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 there is no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing prior to indictment.
Petitioner, while incarcerated, was indicted for robbery and assault. He sought dismissal of the indictment, claiming a due process violation for lack…
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 Indictment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
On May 15, 1967, while petitioner was in jail serving sentence on other offenses, the grand jury returned an original indictment charging him with robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. On August 14, 1967, he petitioned the District Court for a writ of mandamus ordering the indictment dismissed on the ground of a due process deprivation of a preliminary hearing, relying on Blue v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 315, 342 F. 2d 894 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 944, 85 S.Ct. 1029, 13 L.Ed.2d 964 (1965). See, also, Ross v. Sirica, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 10, 380 F. 2d 557 (1967). Being denied relief in the District Court, he now asks this court for leave to appeal that denial without prepayment of costs.
This exact question has been before this court before. Clarke v. Huff, 73 App.D.C. 351, 119 F. 2d 204 (1941). Clarke had been arrested for the first time after indictment, but claimed the right to have a preliminary hearing. The court held that
[Tjhere is no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing prior to indictment or prior to trial. Goldsby v. United States, 1895, 160 U.S. 70, 73, 16 S.Ct. 216, 40 L.Ed. 343; Garrison v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 1939, 104 F. 2d 128, 130; Moore v. Aderhold, 10 Cir., 1939, 108 F. 2d 729, 731. Nor is there a constitutional right to be apprised of grand jury proceedings by a warrant issued for arrest prior to such proceedings (citations omitted.)
In both Blue and Ross this court was addressing itself to a claim that there had been a failure to observe the statutory and Federal Criminal Rule requirements in proceedings before a magistrate following an arrest prior to indictment. Nothing therein contained has any application to the situation where criminal proceedings are initiated in the first instance by indictment. Clarke v. Huff continues to be the authoritative pronouncement by the court in this regard, and renders an appeal in this matter wholly unavailing.
The petition is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Malcus T. Clemons v. United States, 408 F.2d 1230 (D.C. Cir. 1968)
-
United States v. Lewis, 433 F.2d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1970)
-
Coleman v. The Honorable Arthur L. Burnett, 477 F.2d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Goldsby v. United States, 160 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1895)
- Moore v. Aderhold, 108 F.2d 729 (10th Cir. 1939)
- Blue v. United States, 342 F.2d 894 (D.C. Cir. 1964)
- Harmon v. United States, 380 U.S. 944 (U.S. 1965)
- N. Metal Co. v. Pa. Bd. of Fin. & Revenue, 380 U.S. 944 (U.S. 1965)
- Ross v. The Honorable John J. Sirica, 380 F.2d 557 (D.C. Cir. 1967)
- Garrison v. Johnston, 104 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. 1939)
- Clarke v. Huff, 119 F.2d 204 (D.C. Cir. 1941)