Forrest Silva Tucker v. United States

Appellant was indicted, tried before a jury and convicted for a violation of Section 751 of Title 18 U.S.C.A. Section 751 reads as follows:

The gravamen of the charge laid in the indictment is that appellant “who was then and there in the custody of the Attorney General of the United States and his authorized representative by reason of the defendant’s conviction in the United States District Court of an offense, namely: bank robbery, a felony, did escape and attempt to escape from such custody.” The offense in question is charged to have occurred on or about November 5, 1956 in Los Angeles County, California.

Appellant had been taken to Los Angeles, California. At the time of the events here narrated, he was (according to his brief) serving a term, of 25 years imprisonment in Alcatraz penitentiary on his conviction of armed robbery, having been committed to that federal penal institution on or about May 20, 1953. His removal to Los Angeles was to secure his testimony in a matter then pending m the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and his removal was effected under a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, the validity and regularity of which…

(concurring) .

In all of the foregoing opinion, I concur. However, I think the fourth alternative under Section 751 (See 18 U.S.C.A. § 751 ) —“ * * * from any custody under or by virtue of any process issued under the laws of the United States by any court, judge, or commissioner * * * ” — would have been a sufficient basis for an indictment, rather than the harder ground chosen by the district attorney. It is not the case before us, but assuming there had been no contract with Los Angeles County to hold prisoners for the United States Bureau of Prisons, I am satisfied there would still have been a violation by Tucker of the statute when he took his own leave. I am sure that Judge Bone does not mean to imply that “custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative” is a necessary prerequisite to a violation, but lest someone think the indictment form here is always required, I add this dictum.

251 F.2d 794 Forrest Silva TUCKER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 15539. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Jan. 17, 1958. Forrest Silva Tucker, in pro. per. Herbert E. Selwyn, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Laughlin E. Waters, U.S. Atty., Louis Lee Abbott, Leila F. Bulgrin, Asst. U.S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before BONE, ORR and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges. BONE, Circuit Judge. 1 Appellant was indicted, tried before a jury and convicted for a violation of Section 751 of Title 18 U.S.C.A. Section 751 reads as follows: 2 'Whoever escapes or attempts to escape from the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative, or from any institution in which he is confined by direction of the Attorney General, or from any custody under or by virtue of any process issued under the laws of the United States by any court, judge, or commissioner, or from the custody of an officer or employee of the United States pursuant to lawful arrest, shall, if the custody or confinement is by virtue of an arrest on a charge of felony, or conviction of any offense, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or…