CLYDE JOHN BROOKS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

5th Cir. | 1970-04-07
No. 28029
424 F.2d 425 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1970) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Haynes v. United States, which established a self-incrimination defense for unregistered firearm possession, must be applied retroactively.


Facts & Procedural History

Clyde John Brooks pleaded guilty to possessing an unregistered sawed-off shotgun. The Supreme Court later held that a claim of self-incrimination is a…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

We have concluded on the merits that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Accordingly, we have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties of this fact in writing. See Huth v. Southern Pacific Co., 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F. 2d 526; Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F. 2d 804; 5 Cir. R. 18.

Clyde John Brooks pleaded guilty in 1965 to the possession of a sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun which he had not registered. 26 U.S.C. §§ 5851, 5861. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment to commence at the end of a state sentence. But in Haynes v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923, the Supreme Court has held that a claim of self-incrimination provides a full defense to such a prosecution. Brooks now seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied relief, holding that Haynes was not to be applied retroactively.

This Court has recently decided that two companion cases to Haynes, Marchetti v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 39; 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889, and Grosso v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906, require retroactive application. United States v. Lucia, 5 Cir. 1969, 416 F. 2d 920, aff’d en banc, 5 Cir. 1970, 423 F. 2d 697. At the time of its order, the district court did not have the benefit of this decision. For the reasons enunciated in Lucia, we conclude that Brooks did not waive his right to raise the defense of self-incrimination and that Haynes like Marchetti and Grosso must be applied retroactively. In this conclusion, we follow the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, United States v. Miller, 4 Cir. 1969, 406 F. 2d 1100; Meadows v. United States, 9 Cir. 1969, 420 F. 2d 795, and differ with the Sixth Circuit. Graham v. United States, 6 Cir. 1969, 407 F. 2d 1313.

We reverse and remand for disposition consistent with this opinion.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw