Joseph C. Amsler and John W. Irwin v. United States

The appellants, Joseph Clyde Amsler and John William Irwin, hereinafter referred to as defendants or as Amsler and Irwin, respectively, were indicted in the United States District' Court for the Southern District of California, ** Central Division, on a six-count indictment arising out of the alleged kidnapping and interstate transportation of Frank Sina *42 tra, Jr. 1 Amsler and Irwin were jointly-indicted with one Barry Worthington Keenan.

The defendants were tried jointly to a jury. The jury returned verdicts of guilty against Keenan and Amsler on all six counts. A guilty verdict was returned against Irwin on counts one and three through six. Judgment was entered on the verdicts and all three defendants were sentenced to imprisonment. Separate appeals were perfected by each of the defendants but Keenan’s appeal was subsequently dismissed on his motion. The District Court had jurisdiction to try the defendants on the indictments under Section 3231, Title 18, U.S.C. This Court has jurisdiction of the appeals under Sections 1291 and 1294(1), Title 28, U.S.C.

The principal issues presented on these appeals relate to procedural questions. At the outset, counsel for Amsler…

Circuit Judge (dissenting in part):

While I concur in the judgment of reversal, I cannot agree with the majority that there was here no violation of Rule 5(a), Federal Rules of -Criminal Procedure.

Irwin was taken into custody by federal agents at 9 o’clock in the morning of December 13, 1963. Beginning one hour later, his interrogation continued uninterrupted, except for “numerous breaks for coffee, lunch, dinner, and toilet re *54 lief,” for more than twelve hours. More than seven hours.of this period were daylight hours of a weekday, a time when, I assume, a United States Commissioner would be readily accessible in the metropolitan city of San Diego. But it was not until 3 o’clock the next morning, after the interrogation had been completed and Irwin’s statements had been reduced to writing, that the federal officers finally arranged for the arraignment required by Rule 5(a).

The majority opinion states that our decisions in Ginoza v. United States, 279 F.2d 616 (9th Cir. 1960), and Morales v. United States, 344 F.2d 846 (9th Cir. 1965), “are distinguishable on their facts from the case at bar.” I disagree. In those eases, which held that federal officers would not be…

381 F.2d 37 Joseph C. AMSLER and John W. Irwin, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 19509. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. May 3, 1967, As Amended on Denials of Rehearing July 3, 1967. Edgar Paul Boyko, Michael W. Rotberg, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant, John Lrwin. Morris Lavine, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant, Joseph C. Amsler. Robert A. Neeb, Jr., Beverly Hills, Cal., Charles L. Crouch, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant, Barry W. Keenan. Manuel L. Real, U.S. Atty., John K. Van de Kamp, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief Crim. Div., Donald R. Rareed, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief Trial Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Wm. Matthew Byrne, Jr., U.S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief Crim. Div., Donald A. Fareed, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief Trial Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee on rehearing. Before BARNES, CECIL, * and ELY, Circuit Judges. CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge. 1 The appellants, Joseph Clyde Amsler and John William Irwin, hereinafter referred to as defendants or as Amsler and Irwin, respectively, were indicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, ** Central Division, on a six-count…