(DOWNLOAD) "United States v. Gaines" by United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: United States v. Gaines
- Author : United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- Release Date : January 07, 1971
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 53 KB
Description
Bernard Gaines was convicted of a federal narcotics violation on May 16, 1968. He was released on bail pending sentencing.
On June 1, 1968, he was arrested by New York State authorities on charges of robbery and murder and held without bail. On
June 20, 1968, he was brought before the federal court pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum and sentenced to
two years on the narcotics charge. He was then returned to the custody of the New York authorities who proceeded with the
preliminaries to prosecution on the murder and robbery charges. On December 5, 1969, bail was set for the first time in the
amount of $7,500. Gaines' counsel had made no previous application for bail because he had believed that Gaines' indigency
would preclude his posting bail in any amount which might conceivably be set in light of the seriousness of the pending charges.
(Appendix to Gaines' brief in this court at 25a.) Gaines was unable to post bail in this amount and he remained confined by
the New York authorities. On April 1, 1970, Gaines was paroled from state custody and transferred to begin service of his
federal sentence.1 The state indictment against him was dismissed on the basis of newly discovered evidence which led other
persons to be charged for the crimes for which Gaines had been held. Gaines then made a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to correct his sentence and credit him with the time spent in state custody after
bail had been set. The district court denied the motion and we affirmed, 436 F.2d 1069 (1971), reasoning that the wording
of the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3568, did not allow such credit. The Supreme Court vacated our judgment by order of June 1, 1971,
402 U.S. 1006, 91 S. Ct. 2195, 29 L. Ed. 2d 428, and remanded the case for "reconsideration in light of position asserted
by the Solicitor General."