Edward D. Putty v. United States

Putty appeals from a conviction for conspiracy and theft of federal property, based on an information filed by the prosecuting attorney. He urges as his *474 grounds of appeal (A) that he was tried on an information filed by the prosecuting attorney and was not granted the consideration of an impartial grand jury, and that at the time of the commission of the charged acts and at the time of his trial, Rules 7 and 6 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C., made applicable by Congress to Guam, gave no power to its District Court to prosecute him except by indictment, unless waived- — -which it was not; (B) that the amendment of the Organic Act of Guam, enacted after Putty’s commission of the charged acts, to make his conviction legal without an indictment is invalid as an ex post facto law; (C) that because the proceedings of his trial and conviction are void, the amendment is a bill of attainder; and (D) that the information fails in two counts to state an offense and as to two other counts, the evidence fails to support the convictions.

(A) Putty’s conviction on January 27, 195S, based on an information, was then without the power of the Guam District Court.

Section…

(concurring specially).

I agree that the judgment must be reversed and the information ordered dismissed. Of course Congress might have withdrawn from this Court all jurisdiction to entertain the appeal here, Ex Parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506 , 19 L.Ed. 264 ; National Exchange Bank of Baltimore v. Peters, 144 U.S. 570 , 12 S.Ct. 767 , 36 L.Ed. 545 , but § 3 of the Act of August 27, 1954, quoted in Judge Denman’s opinion, does not purport to do that. This Court still has jurisdiction to hear the appeal but under § 3 it cannot set aside the conviction on the ground there named; — we may hear the appeal but we may not reverse on the ground that defendant was not indicted by grand jury.

I agree that that provision is invalid either because Congress has “passed the limit which separates the legislative from the judicial power”, under the rule of United States v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128, 147 , 20 L.Ed. 519 , or because, since the enactment operates to inflict punishment, it must be held to be a bill of attainder. I agree that the constitutional prohibition in Article I, § 9, Clause 3, relating to bills of attainder and ex post facto laws extends to the acts of Congress relating to the Island…

220 F.2d 473 Edward D. PUTTY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 13778. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 10, 1955. Finton J. Phelan, Jr., Agana, Guam, Thomas Jenkins, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Herbert G. Homme, Jr., U.S. Atty., Agana, Guam, Robert H. Schnacke, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and POPE, Circuit Judge, and HAMLIN, District Judge. DENMAN, Chief Judge. 1 Putty appeals from a conviction for conspiracy and theft of federal property, based on an information filed by the prosecuting attorney. He urges as his grounds of appeal (A) that he was tried on an information filed by the prosecuting attorney and was not granted the consideration of an impartial grand jury, and that at the time of the commission of the charged acts and at the time of his trial, Rules 7 and 6 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C., made applicable by Congress to Guam, gave no power to its District Court to prosecute him except by indictment, unless waived-- which it was not; (B) that the amendment of the Organic Act of Guam, enacted after Putty's commission of the charged acts, to make his…