Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
United States Ex Rel. Voigt v. Toombs
67 F.2d 744
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1933-12-07
- Topic
- general
BRYAN, Circuit Judge. An indictment was returned in the Southern District of Texas against Osear E. Voigt and others, charging a conspiracy to smuggle intoxicating liquor into the United States. Voigt was arrested in the Eastern District of Texas, and held by order of a United States commissioner for removal pursuant to 18 USCA § 591. On his application, the judge for the Eastern District issued a writ of habeas corpus and released him on bail pending a hearing.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States Ex Rel. Voigt v. Toombs. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 21 opinions
UNITED STATES v. TOOMBS,67 F.2d 744(5th Cir. 1933)
UNITED STATES ex rel. VOIGT v. TOOMBS.
No. 7044.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
December 7, 1933.
Habeas corpus proceedings by the United States, on the relation of Oscar E. Voigt, against H.E.L. Toombs, United States Marshal for the Southern District of Texas. From an order discharging the writ and remanding the relator to custody for trial, the relator appeals.
Order affirmed.
H.M. Holden, U.S. Atty., and M.S. McCorquodale, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Houston, Tex., for appellee.
Before BRYAN, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.
The District Court for the Southern District acquired jurisdiction over the person of appellant by reason of the service of process upon him within that district. It is well settled in the courts of the United States that jurisdiction once acquired in a criminal case is not impaired by the manner in which the accused is brought before the court. Ker v. Illinois,119 U.S. 436,7 S. Ct. 225,30 L. Ed. 421; Mahon v. Justice,127 U.S. 700,8 S. Ct. 1204,1211,32 L. Ed. 283; Cook v. Hart,146 U.S. 183,13 S. Ct. 40,36 L. Ed. 934; Pettibone v. Nichols,203 U.S. 192,212,27 S. Ct. 111,51 L. Ed. 148, 7 Ann. Cas. 1047. See, also, Ex parte Lamar (C.C.A.) 274 F. 160. In Mahon v. Justice, supra, upon a review of the authorities the Supreme Court said that the decisions all proceed upon the theory "that the offender against the law of the state is not relieved from liability because of personal injuries received from private parties, or because of indignities committed against another state"; and then added: "It would indeed be a strange conclusion if a party charged with a criminal offense could be excused from answering to the government whose laws he had violated because other parties had done violence to him, and also committed an offense against the laws of another state." In that case a distinction is taken between civil and criminal cases. In the former the party who is guilty of fraud or violence in bringing a defendant within the jurisdiction cannot invoke the aid of the court; whereas in a criminal casePage 745wrong will not be imputed to the sovereign. The cases above cited, it is true, had to do with jurisdiction as between states; but in Re Johnson,167 U.S. 120,17 S. Ct. 735,42 L. Ed. 103, where the question was which of two district courts of the United States had jurisdiction, the same doctrine was announced and applied. In Ker v. Illinois, supra, it is recognized that, while in the trial of a criminal case the court will not stop to inquire whether the rights of the accused were violated in securing his presence for trial, yet the accused may have his remedy against his abductors or kidnapers by a civil suit for false imprisonment. And of course officers who violate the criminal law by abducting or kidnaping even individuals charged with crime are not immune from prosecution and punishment.
The order appealed from is affirmed.