The People of the Territory of Guam v. Edmund J. Olsen

Good Law
540 F.2d 1011·1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7631
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 10, 197676-1557California1,359 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

In Agana Bay Development Co. v. Supreme Court of Guam, 529 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1976), a divided panel of this court held that the Organic Act of Guam, 64 Stat. 384 (1950), authorized the territory to enact its Court Reorganization Act, by which it transferred the appellate jurisdiction of the district court to the newly created Supreme Court of Guam. The record in that case shows that it was settled after our opinion issued; no petition for certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court of the United States.

Appellant in the present case was convicted of criminal charges in the Superior Court of Guam. He appealed to the United States District Court for the Territory of Guam, and that court dismissed the appeal on the authority of Agana Bay. Appellant then petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States before the case was heard in our court; the petition was denied. We ordered the case submitted to the court en banc so that the question presented in Agana Bay could be resolved by the full court.

We now hold that the provisions of Guam’s Court Reorganization Act transferring the appellate jurisdiction of the district court to a territorial court…

Dissenting Opinion

Goodwin, J.

I dissent, for the reasons set out by Judge Carter in Agana Bay Development Co. v. Supreme Court of Guam, 529 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1976).

MEMORANDUM OF CIRCUIT JUDGE CHAMBERS:

On June 9,1976,1 participated in the vote of the active judges of the court to take this case en banc.

On June 13, 1976, I received notice that the Chief Justice of the United States was appointing me as chairman of a newly created committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States on the Pacific Territories.

On July 8, the Chief Justice completed the committee by adding thereto our Circuit Judges Ely and Choy and Judge Paul D. Shriver (retired United States district judge for the Territory of Guam) of Denver, Colorado, and Charles H. Habernigg (former Attorney General of American Samoa), of Portland, Oregon.

*1013 In the interim between my appointment and. the appointment of Judges Ely and Choy to the committee, the latter two had cast their votes for the view expressed by Judge Kennedy. Judge Ely voted on June 24 and Judge Choy on June 28. I did not vote because it seemed that I should not wear a judicial hat and a semi-legislative or policy hat at the same time, although I do not consider myself…

Opinion

540 F.2d 1011 The PEOPLE OF the TERRITORY OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edmund J. OLSEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 76-1557. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Aug. 10, 1976. Howard G. Trapp of Trapp, Gayle, Teker, Hammer & Lacy, Agana, Guam, for defendant-appellant. Nancy Nye, Asst. Atty. Gen., Agana, Guam, for plaintiff-appellee. OPINION Before BROWNING, DUNIWAY, ELY, HUFSTEDLER, WRIGHT, TRASK, CHOY, GOODWIN, WALLACE, SNEED and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 In Agana Bay Development Co. v. Supreme Court of Guam, 529 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1976), a divided panel of this court held that the Organic Act of Guam, 64 Stat. 384 (1950), authorized the territory to enact its Court Reorganization Act, by which it transferred the appellate jurisdiction of the district court to the newly created Supreme Court of Guam. The record in that case shows that it was settled after our opinion issued; no petition for certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court of the United States. 2 Appellant in the present case was convicted of criminal charges in the Superior Court of Guam. He appealed to the United States District Court for the Territory of Guam, and that court dismissed the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.