United States v. John Craige Terrack

515 F.2d 558 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John Craige TERRACK, Appellant. No. 74-1283. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. April 16, 1975. 1 Bruce Margolin (argued), Hollywood, Cal., for appellant. 2 Kenneth P. Snoke, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.OPINION 3 Before ELY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and POWELL, * District Judge. 4 POWELL, District Judge. 5 A complaint was filed against the appellant Terrack on April 9, 1971, charging him with the smuggling of narcotics into the United States. On June 4, 1973 Terrack was arrested. An indictment was returned on August 13, 1973 charging Terrack with conspiring to import narcotics into the United States and with the importation of narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174 . Terrack was arraigned in the District Court on September 17, 1973. His attorney moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that Terrack's right to a speedy trial had been violated. That motion, made on October 11, 1973 was denied by the District Court on October 29, 1973. A superseding information was filed against Terrack on November 13, 1973, charging him with the unlawful distribution of a narcotic not…

*559 OPINION

A complaint was filed against the appellant Terraek on April 9, 1971, charging him with the smuggling of narcotics into the United States. On June 4, 1973 Terraek was arrested. An indictment was returned on August 13, 1973 charging Terraek with conspiring to import narcotics into the United States and with the importation of narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174 . Terraek was arraigned in the District Court on September 17, 1973. His attorney moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that Terrack’s right to a speedy trial had been violated. That motion, made on October 11, 1973 was denied' by the District Court on October 29, 1973. A superseding information was filed against Terraek on November 13, 1973, charging him with the unlawful distribution of a narcotic not contained in its original stamped package, a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4704 (a). On that same day a stipulation of facts was filed by the prosecution and Terraek through Terrack’s then defense attorney. Solely on the basis of this stipulation, Terraek was found guilty by the district judge.

The first issue raised in this appeal is whether Terraek was denied his right to a speedy trial as a result…

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent.

The basic issue is whether Terrack’s stipulation was, for all intents and purposes, a guilty plea, entitling Terrack to such due process rights as are accorded to all accuseds who plead guilty. Ter-rack stipulated to the existence of all elements of the offense charged, couching his stipulation in the language of the statute under which he had been indicted. Furthermore, he stipulated to all the facts charged by the Government, including facts uniquely within his own knowledge, i. e., that he “knowingly, intentionally, and unlawfully placed the above described books in the mail.” No witnesses or evidence other than the stipulation was presented to the court prior to Terrack’s conviction. The trial judge, apparently recognizing that Ter-rack was entering a de facto guilty plea by assenting to the stipulation, twice informed him that his entry of the stipulation constituted a guilty plea. The court stated:

The prosecution argues, and the majority appears to agree, that the fact that the stipulation was not formally designated as a guilty plea is determina *562 tive, even though its consequences were precisely the same as a guilty plea,…