IN RE GRAND JURY MATTER (WITNESS RW)

3d Cir. | 1982-12-29
No. 82-1183
Before HUNTER and GARTH, Circuit Judges, and STERN, District Judge.
697 F.2d 103 United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1982) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 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

A subpoenaed witness serving a criminal sentence is not entitled to the statutory attendance fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1821.


Facts & Procedural History

A prisoner serving a state sentence was subpoenaed to provide handwriting exemplars and was brought to a federal detention center. He sought witness f…

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: ,

The issue presented by this appeal is whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 1821, a subpoenaed witness is entitled to the $30 per day fee for attendance at court when that witness was serving a criminal sentence.

Appellant (the witness RW) was subpoenaed by a federal grand jury on January 5, 1982, to provide handwriting exemplars. At that time the witness was serving a state sentence in the Schuylkill County Jail. After the witness refused to provide handwriting exemplars, a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Testificandum was issued and he was brought, in the custody of United States Marshals, to the Philadelphia Detention Center. The witness was housed there •while government attorneys, and an appointed Public Defender, convinced him to provide the handwriting exemplars. He remained at the Detention Center for another two days while arrangements were made for his return to Schuylkill County Jail.

On January 20, 1982, the witness filed a motion to compel payment of witness fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1821(b). After briefing, Judge James T. Giles of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the witness’s motion for the various reasons expressed in his opinion, In re Witness Fees for Prisoner, 533 F.Supp. 401 (E.D.Pa.1982).

For substantially the same grounds expressed in Judge Giles’ well-reasoned opinion, we agree that 28 U.S.C. § 1821 does not require the payment of fees for attendance at court to prisoners serving criminal sentences.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw