GACA
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1973-05-07
No. 72-6011
Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Rehnquist dissent.
411 U.S. 618 Supreme Court of the United States (1973) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 36 L. Ed. 2d 541 · 93 S. Ct. 2156 · SCDB 1972-109 · 1973 U.S. LEXIS 76
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.

Synopsis

A defendant convicted of illegal wiretapping had his appellate appeal dismissed when he failed to pay a filing fee, believing his in forma pauperis status granted by the trial judge exempted him from the fee requirement. The Supreme Court granted him in forma pauperis status, vacated the dismissal, and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate his appeal, accepting the government's concession that reinstatement was necessary to avoid potential injustice.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Petitioner was convicted in United States District Court of illegal wiretapping under 18 U. S. C. § 2511. His appeal was dismissed for want of timely prosecution when he failed to pay a $25 filing fee. Petitioner contends that he thought payment of the fee unnecessary because he had been granted leave to appeal in forma pauperis by the District Judge.

In his memorandum before this Court, the Solicitor General states that the United States does not oppose a remand to reinstate the appeal in the exercise of this Court’s supervisory powers in order to avoid possible injustice and the possibility of collateral attack upon the conviction. In light of this representation, and upon our independent examination of the record, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari are granted and the case is vacated and remanded with instructions that the appeal be reinstated.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Rehnquist dissent.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416 (U.S. 1996)
    …78); United States v. Hayden, 26 F. Cas. 236, 238 (No. 15,333) (NDNY 1877).5 [*428] The case law of this Court that petitioner relies upon does not establish any “inherent power” to act in contravention of applicable Rules. In Gaca v. United States, 411 U. S. 618 (1978) (per curiam), which reinstated an appeal that had been dismissed for want of timely prosecution, there was no suggestion that reinstatement was contrary to any statute or rule of procedure. And in United States v. Nobles, 422 U. S. 225 (1975)…
  • United States ex rel. Thomas Kirby v. Sturges, 510 F.2d 397 (7th Cir. 1975)
    …ice to ascertain quickly whether they had captured the right person or whether they should continue their search while the criminal is still within easy reach. See, e. g., Mock v. Rose, 472 F. 2d 619, 621 (6th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 971, 93 S.Ct. 2156, 36 L.Ed.2d 693; Bates v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 36, 405 F. 2d 1104, 1106 (1968); Note, Due Process Considera [*404] tions in Police Showup Practices, 44 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 377, 387 (1969). Nor could this showup be justified because of the inabi…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw