LURK
v.
UNITED STATES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Article Iii Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to that court. Ellis v. United States, 356 U. S. 674.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter,
whom
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart join, dissenting.
In my view Ellis v. United States, 356 U. S. 674, on the basis of which the case is sent back to the Court of Appeals, does not fit the facts and circumstances of this case.
In support of his contention that he was wrongfully-denied the right to appeal in forma pauperis, petitioner presents for our consideration two grounds for reversal of his conviction of robbery in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The first contention, concerning the admission at his trial of allegedly prejudicial evidence, is so lacking in merit as to be plainly frivolous. It would not justify an appeal-in forma pauperis. But petitioner also raises a jurisdictional question, viz., whether he could constitutionally be tried by a court presided over by a retired judge of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. This question, therefore, would have warranted review by the Court of Appeals.
Solution of this problem will call into consideration a number of subsidiary questions. What are the characteristics of an Article III court? Is the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals an Article III court? If so, when did it become such a court? Assuming arguendo that the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals has been an Article III court only since 1958 (when Congress enacted legislation conferring that status), what is the bearing of this fact on the status of a judge who retired from the court prior to that time?
These are not questions on which, with all due respect, a lower court can be of effective.assistance to this Court. They do not involve the evaluation of evidence or the application of rules of local law or special familiarity and * experience with the materials and the underlying considerations on which judgment must be based. On the contrary, the constitutional history and the cases upon which the decision ultimately must turn are the special concern of this Court. Indeed, the questions posed would be entirely suitable for certification to this Court by a lower appellate court. See 28 U. S. C. § 1254. Cf. United States v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55. Furthermore, the administration of justice in the federal courts demands a speedy disposition of this dispute. Until it is settled, assignment of retired judges to help clear dockets in federal courts under a litigious cloud will be hampered by uncertainty.
Nothing could be more obvious than that the Court of Appeals, no matter how it may decide the question now put in its keeping, will have it only temporarily. The inevitable final destination of the case is this Court. Decision here should not be delayed by wastefully time-consuming remand to the Court of Appeals of a question that is already before us.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1962)…the standard governing the allowance of appeals in forma pauperis, not with where rests the burden of showing frivolity in the face of a certification by the trial court. For a case in which a similar warning was sounded, see Lurk v. United States, 366 U. S. 712 (1961) (dissenting opinion). Subsequent events have shown this admonition to be words of wisdom indeed. See 111 U. S. App. D. C. 238, 296 F. 2d 360, certiorari granted, 368 U. S. 815. [For subsequent decision of this Court, see 370 U. S. 530 (1962).…1 / 3
-
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (U.S. 1962)…ent Appeals sitting by similar designation.3 The petitioner’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals [*533] in forma pauperis, respecting the validity of this designation and alleged trial errors, was upheld by this Court last Term, 366 U. S. 712; we are now asked to review the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of his conviction. Because of the significance of the “designation” issue for the federal judicial system, we granted certiorari in the two cases, 368 U. S. 814, 815, limited to the questi…
-
Benny Lurk v. United States, 296 F.2d 360 (D.C. Cir. 1961)…PER CURIAM. This case is here on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, following remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. Lurk v. United States, 1961, 366 U.S. 712, 81 S.Ct. 1229, 6 L.Ed.2d 845. We heard argument in banc on the merits of the two contentions advanced by appellant’s able court-appointed counsel, namely, (1) that certain evidence was erroneously admitted at appellant’s trial for robbery in the Di…
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
- United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55 (U.S. 1914)
- Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674 (U.S. 1958)