From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Schrum

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Jan 8, 1981
638 F.2d 214 (10th Cir. 1981)

Summary

adopting District Court's literal interpretation of Agreement

Summary of this case from Alabama v. Bozeman

Opinion

Nos. 80-1202 to 80-1206.

Submitted and Argued December 15, 1980.

Decided January 8, 1981.

Robert S. Streepy, Asst. U.S. Atty., Topeka, Kan. (James P. Buchele, U.S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., with him on briefs), for plaintiff-appellant.

Ira R. Kirkendoll, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Topeka, Kan. (Leonard D. Munker, Federal Public Defender, Wichita, Kan., with him on briefs), for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

Before HOLLOWAY, LOGAN and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges.


The only issue in these consolidated appeals is whether Article IV(e) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, 18 U.S.C. App. § 2, requires dismissal of federal indictments in the following circumstances: State prisoners, against whom detainers had been lodged, were taken from state custody by federal authorities under a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to appear for arraignment or other pretrial proceedings in federal court, but were not tried before being returned the same day to the state prison.

In a well-reasoned opinion the trial court held the federal indictments must be dismissed in these circumstances. We agree and affirm on the basis of the analysis set out in Judge Rogers' opinion reported as United States v. Schrum, 504 F. Supp. 23 (D.Kan. 1980).


Summaries of

United States v. Schrum

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Jan 8, 1981
638 F.2d 214 (10th Cir. 1981)

adopting District Court's literal interpretation of Agreement

Summary of this case from Alabama v. Bozeman

stating that the Agreement required dismissal of federal indictments where state prisoners, against whom detainers had been lodged, were taken from state custody by federal authorities, on a writ, to appear for arraignment and other pretrial proceedings but were not tried before being returned to state custody the same day, relying upon 18 U.S.C.A. App. § 2 (Article IV(e))

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Iwuamadi
Case details for

United States v. Schrum

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ALBERT W. SCHRUM…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Date published: Jan 8, 1981

Citations

638 F.2d 214 (10th Cir. 1981)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Roy

Under these circumstances, the Court adopts the reasoning of courts in other jurisdictions which have held…

U.S. v. Trammel

Thus, Trammel contends that the government obtained him from state custody under a detainer and returned him…