Petitioner was convicted on four counts of a five-count
indictment charging offenses under the narcotics laws. The
Solicitor General suggested to this Court that the combination of
circumstances in the case, beginning with one judge's clearly
expressed intention to impose a five-year sentence and ending with
another judge's imposition of a twenty-year sentence, was not
consistent with the orderly administration of criminal justice in
the federal courts.
Held: a due regard for the fair administration of
justice requires that the convictions under Counts 3, 4 and 5 be
set aside; but the conviction under Count 2, to which petitioner
originally pleaded guilty, is affirmed. Pp.
365 U. S.
646-647.
274 F.2d 352 affirmed in part and reversed in part.
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner was convicted on four counts of a five-count
indictment charging offenses under the narcotics laws. 21 U.S.C. §
174. He complains of a number of alleged trial errors. In addition,
he points to a series of events occurring during the course of the
prosecution
Page 365 U. S. 647
which, he says, operated to deprive him of constitutionally
guaranteed rights. It is unnecessary to detail here the course of
those proceedings, since we are advised that a change in the
calendar system of the District Court for the Southern District of
California insures that what occurred in this case will not occur
again.
During oral argument in this Court, the Solicitor General
suggested that the combination of circumstances in this case,
beginning with one judge's clearly expressed intention to impose a
five-year sentence, and ending with another judge's imposition of a
twenty-year sentence under the indictment, was not consistent with
that regularity and fairness which should characterize the
administration of criminal justice in the federal courts. In the
light of the Solicitor General's suggestion, and upon an
independent examination of the record, we have concluded that a due
regard for the fair administration of justice requires that the
convictions under counts 3, 4, and 5 of the indictment be set
aside. 28 U.S.C. § 2106;
see Communist Party of United States
v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U.
S. 115,
351 U. S. 124;
Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U. S.
1,
352 U. S. 14;
Marshall v. United States, 360 U.
S. 310.
Cf. Petite v. United States,
361 U. S. 529. The
conviction under count 2, to which the petitioner originally
pleaded guilty, is affirmed.
Because of this disposition of the case, we do not reach for
consideration the alleged trial errors with respect to limitation
of cross-examination, sufficiency of the evidence of a "sale" under
count 5, and instructions to the jury as to entrapment.
So ordered.
