Louis M. Johnson and James F. Robinson v. United States

Even though the order denying bail to appellant James F. Robinson pending his appeal from the conviction below is without dissent, nevertheless, Judge Fee and I agree that there is need for a brief statement concerning the proper standards to be applied in determining applications under Rule 46(a) (2) Fed.Rules Crim.Proc., 18 U.S.C.A. There it is provided that “bail may be allowed pending appeal * * * only if it appears that the case involves a substantial question which should be determined by the appellate court.” (Emphasis supplied.)

During the fiscal year 1953, 10 applications for bail on appeal were filed in this court. In each case applications for bail to the District Court had been’ denied. Of these applications, 9 were granted by this court and 1 was denied. Of the 9 cases, in which bail was granted, the judgments in five were affirmed; two of the appeals were dismissed on stipulation ; one appeal was abandoned and dismissed, and 1 of the 9 is still pending.

*579 For the fiscal year 1954, 22 applications for bail on appeal were made after denial by the District Court; 11 were granted and 11 were denied. For the first four months of the fiscal year 1955, four…

(concurring).

The above opinion presents a reasonable approach. When a defendant has been convicted by a jury in a criminal case, public interest outweighs all other considerations. The presumption of innocence has vanished. Just criticism is directed at the judicial system if a convicted defendant is allowed at large for long periods of time, even if eventually conviction is affirmed. Bail should not be allowed therefore unless reversal is fairly certain. Furthermore, the time of briefs and final hearing should be made positive whenever bail is granted by an appellate judge.

STEPHENS, Circuit Judge (concurring in the result, but dissenting from the views of his associates as to the consideration of petitions for bail).

I concur in the denial of the petition for bail in this case but respectfully and *580 emphatically disagree with Judge Goodman’s statement and Judge Fee’s addendum thereto.

In the instant case we tested the merits of the petition for bail on the legal question: Has petitioner-appellant shown us that his case involves a substantial question which should be determined by the appellate court ? And we all agreed that he had not done so. Judge Goodman’s statement…

218 F.2d 578 Louis M. JOHNSON and James F. Robinson, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. December 13, 1954. 1 Ernest R. Utley, Alden F. Houck, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. 2 Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Harry D. Steward, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. 3 Before STEPHENS and FEE, Circuit Judges, and GOODMAN, District Judge. 4 GOODMAN, District Judge. 5 Even though the order denying bail to appellant James F. Robinson pending his appeal from the conviction below is without dissent, nevertheless, Judge Fee and I agree that there is need for a brief statement concerning the proper standards to be applied in determining applications under Rule 46(a) (2) Fed.Rules Crim.Proc., 18 U.S.C.A. There it is provided that "bail may be allowed pending appeal * * * only if it appears that the case involves a substantial question which should be determined by the appellate court." (Emphasis supplied.) 6 During the fiscal year 1953, 10 applications for bail on appeal were filed in this court. In each case applications for bail to the District Court had been denied. Of these applications, 9 were granted by this…