JOSEPH L. BYRD, 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 District Court's bail amount was inconsistent with its finding that the appellant was bailable, and that no conditions of release would reasonably assure his appearance or community safety.
Appellant moved for release on personal recognizance or reduced bail pending appeal after the District Court set bail at $7,500. The appellate court r…
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 Danger To The Community cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On further consideration of appellant’s motion for release on personal recognizance or for reduction of bail and unsecured appearance bond pending appeal; and on consideration of the original record on appeal herein, supplemented pursuant to this Court’s order of March 18, 1968, it is
Ordered by the Court that the order of the District Court setting bail pending appeal in the amount of $7,500 be vacated, and appellant’s aforesaid motion is denied for the reasons set forth in the attached opinion.
TAMM, Circuit Judge, did not participate in the foregoing order. PER CURIAM:
After the trial judge set bail pending appeal at $7,500, appellant moved in this court for release on personal recognizance or for reduction of bail and unsecured appearance bond pending appeal. We remanded for a statement why the District Court, having found appellant a fit subject to be released on bail pending appeal nevertheless set his bail in an amount which it appeared he could not meet. In response the trial judge has supplemented the record with a statement of his reasons for an appeal bond in the amount of $7,500. These reasons all relate to insuring appellant’s presence when required.
In view of the inconsistency in the trial court’s determination that pending his appeal appellant was bailable and the fixing of his bail bond in an amount which he could not meet, see Hairston v. United States, 120 U.S.App. D.C. 31, 343 F. 2d 313*, we have undertaken a de novo consideration of appellant’s motion, see Hansford v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 320, 353 F. 2d 858 (1965).
We conclude that “no one or more conditions of release will reasonably assure that [appellant] * * *
will not flee or pose a danger to any other person or to the community.”
We vacate the order of the district court setting $7,500 appeal bond and deny appellant’s motion for release.
*
See, also, order of this court filed April 12, 1968, in Rogers v. United States of America, 130 U.S.App.D.C.-, 401 F. 2d 387.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Stanley, 469 F.2d 576 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- Hansford v. United States, 353 F.2d 858 (D.C. Cir. 1965)
- Rogers v. United States, 401 F.2d 387 (D.C. Cir. 1968)
- Hairston v. United States, 343 F.2d 313 (D.C. Cir. 1965)