Collier v. United States

PETITIONER: Collier
RESPONDENT: United States
LOCATION: Where Penn was killed

DOCKET NO.: 695
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1965-1967)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

CITATION: 384 US 59 (1966)
ARGUED: Mar 24, 1966
DECIDED: Apr 19, 1966

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Collier v. United States

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 24, 1966 in Collier v. United States

Earl Warren:

Number 695, Joe Robert Collier, Petitioner, versus United States.

Mr. Spritzer.

Spritzer:

May it please the Court.

I should like to move the admission of Paul Bender of the District of Columbia Bar for purposes of arguing this cause on behalf of the United States.

Earl Warren:

Motion is granted.

Dean E. Denlinger:

May it please the Court.

Earl Warren:

Mr. Denlinger.

Dean E. Denlinger:

May it please the Court.

This case arose upon the conviction of the petitioner, Mr. Collier, for violation of the White-Slave Act.

He attempted to appeal his conviction to the Sixth Circuit.

That Circuit dismissed his appeal as untimely.

It is from that decision, that ruling of the Sixth Circuit that we are here.

There are two independent alternative grounds for reversing that decision.

The first of this is that the notice of appeal which was so labeled was in fact filed within time.

The second ground was first urged by the Government itself in his brief filed last week and that ground is this.

That clearly within time, a motion for bail was filed.

This motion for bail in the Government's view and in ours did constitute a notice of appeal.

The facts are these.

The conviction was on March 24, a year ago.

The motion for a new trial was made on April 2nd, nine days later.

Three days after that, the District Court denied the motion for new trial.

Seven days after that, the counsel for the petitioner filed a paper denominated notice of appeal.

The rule involved is the Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

That rule states and with the Court's permission I'd like to read just a few lines of that in plain and in unambiguous terms, the following.

An appeal by a defendant may be taken within 10 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from, but if a motion for a new trial or in arrest of judgment has been made within the 10-day period, an appeal from a judgment or conviction may be taken within 10 days after entry of the order denying the motion.

In this case, the lawyer then appearing for the petitioner literally and very plainly complied with that rule as written.

Within 10 days, specifically on the ninth day, he did file a motion for a new trial.

William O. Douglas:

Well, where is that in the record?

Dean E. Denlinger:

It's on page 11.

William O. Douglas:

Thank you.