Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google
News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Meyer Harris Cohen, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals - 283 F.2d 50
A. L. Wirin, Fred Okrand, Jack Dahlstrum, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Laughlin E. Waters, U.S. Atty., Robert J. Jensen, Thomas R. Sheridan, Asst. U.S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before BARNES, JERTBERG and MERRILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals from an order made by one judge of the District Court for the Southern District of California raising bail originally fixed by another judge at $100,000, reduced by a second judge to $25,000, and raised by the third to $100,000. Appellant has also filed a 'motion to set bail pending appeal and/or a motion to reduce bail.' Both the appeal and the motions are based on the ground that the bail finally fixed was in an excessive amount, violative of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 46(c), 18 U.S.C., and the Eighth Amendment.
Under the procedure suggested as 'proper' in Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 72 S.Ct. 1, 96 L.Ed. 3, 4 the appellant Cohen must move 'for reduction of bail and appeal to the Court of Appeals from an order denying such motion.' That procedure has not been followed herein.
This court's general jurisdiction on appeals extends only to 'final decisions,' 28 U.S.C. 1291. Neither counsel have furnished us case law indicating this court has jurisdiction to hear the instant appeal. The motions are supported here by affidavits disclosing facts apparently not offered to the court below.
Although there is indirect authority in Colhen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528, we find no direct authority either to hear the pending appeal or the motions,
The appeal is dismissed without prejudice, and the matters remanded to the District Court to permit an application for a reduction of bail. If denied, this court will then have clear and certain jurisdiction to review such action, the same evidence will be before us that is before the District Court, and we will expedite a hearing of such appeal, should it be necessary.