Ramirez v. United States
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Dissent
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting.
I would grant and reverse for the reasons set forth by Judge Hufstedler in the Court of Appeals, 480 F. 2d 76 . *1013 The majority had affirmed on Bradley v. United States, 410 U. S. 605 . Judge Hufstedler said:
“Section 1103 (a) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 provides in pertinent part: 'Prosecutions for any violation of law occurring prior to the effective date of [the Act] shall not be affected by the repeals . . . made by [it] or abated by reason thereof.’ The keystone of the Bradley rationale is its construction of the word 'prosecutions’ in section 1103 (a) as ‘clearly import[ing] a beginning and an end.’ The ‘end,’ as Bradley squarely held, is the conclusion of sentencing. The ‘beginning’ of a prosecution is the return of an indictment. These indictments were returned after section 176a had been repealed. There was no prosecution to be saved by section 1103 (a). Bradley means that any prosecution initiated before repeal of the statute carries with it the old section 176a penalty. Conversely, any prosecution under section 176a begun after repeal of section 176a for the substantive offense committed before repeal carries with it the milder penalties of the successor statute.
“The substantive offense was specifically saved. Prosecutions initiated before repeal were ‘not . . . affected’ ar ‘abated.’ Prosecutions begun after repeal of section 176a could be neither affected nor abated, because they were nonexistent when the old statute was repealed.” 480 F. 2d, at 79 .
That is my view.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(Marshall, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari after Second Circuit, reversed by Supreme Court,' remanded to district court with instruction to dismiss petition)
Cited by 14 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court1
- U.S. Courts of Appeals8
- Federal District Courts3
- Federal Specialty Courts1
- State Highest Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- David Jackson, Jr. v. United States
- Jerry Lane Jurek v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections
- Peter Paul Ventura, Jr. v. Larry Meachum, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Correction
- United States v. Edward Pastor and Martin Weiner
- Save the Dunes Council v. Clifford L. Alexander, Secretary of the Army
- State v. Adlington-Kelly
Most recent
- Herta Spitzweiser-Wittgenstein v. Tom Newton, Warden Attorney General of the State of New Mexico
- Peter Paul Ventura, Jr. v. Larry Meachum, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Correction
- Philip Morris, Incorporated v. John R. Block
- State v. Adlington-Kelly
- Hawthorne Oil & Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy
- Jerry Lane Jurek v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.