United States v. Albert W. Schrum United States of Am. v. William K. Vanwinkle United States of Am. v. Stephen J. Thompson United States of Am. v. Basil Dickey Stone United States of Am. v. William G. Grimes, 638 F.2d 214 (10th Cir. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Albert W. Schrum United States of Am. v. William K. Vanwinkle United States of Am. v. Stephen J. Thompson United States of Am. v. Basil Dickey Stone United States of Am. v. William G. Grimes, 638 F.2d 214 (10th Cir. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Larry Johnson (ca9, 1992-01-13) · Strongest negative: United States v. Daniels (ca1, 1993-08-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" United States v. Daniels
1st Cir. · 1993 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see United States v. Schrum, 638 F.2d 214, 215 (10th Cir.1981) (whenever prisoner is transferred, however briefly, IAD is violated and charges must be dismissed), aff'g 504 F.Supp. 23 (D.Kan.1980); United States v. Thompson, 562 F.2d 232, 234 (3d Cir.1977) (en banc) (same), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 949 , 98 S.Ct. 2858 , 56 L.Ed.2d 793 (1978).
discussed Cited "but see" United States v. Daniels
1st Cir. · 1993 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see United States v. Schrum, 638 F.2d 214 , ___ ___ _____________ ______ 215 (10th Cir. 1981) (whenever prisoner is transferred, however briefly, IAD is violated and charges must be dismissed), aff'g 504 F. Supp. 23 (D.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Larry Johnson
9th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
United States v. Schrum, 638 F.2d 214, 215 (10th Cir.1981), aff'g 504 F.Supp. 23 (D.Kan.1980); United States v. Thompson, 562 F.2d 232, 234 (3d Cir.1977) (en banc).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Iwuamadi
D. Neb. · 1989 · confidence medium
The Agreement contains “anti-shuttling” 3 provisions which might reasonably have been understood by the federal authorities to have prohibited the federal government from returning the defendant to Alabama custody until the defendant’s federal trial was completed, thereby precluding other state authorities from promptly obtaining custody of the defendant from Alabama in order to charge him. 4 See United States v. Schrum, 638 F.2d 214, 215 (10th Cir.1981) (stating that the Agreement required dismissal of federal indictments where state prisoners, against whom detainers had been lodged, we…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Baker
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
The definitional portion of the statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-2(a), makes it clear that as used in the IAD, "state" means "a State of the United States; the United States of America; a territory or possession of the United States; the District of Columbia; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico." In United States v. Thompson, the Third Circuit concluded that the IAD applies "where the Federal Government is trying a state prisoner serving his state sentence within the geographical limits of the state in which the federal district court is located." 562 F. 2d 232 , 234 n. 2 (3d Cir.1977) (citing United Sta…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Williams (2×)
Pa. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Mauro, 436 U.S. at 363 , 98 S.Ct. 1834 (“Once the Federal Government lodges a detain-er against a prisoner with state prison officials, the Agreement by its express terms becomes applicable and the United States must comply with its provisions.”); see also United Slates v. Schrum, 638 F.2d 214 (10th Cir.1981) (form of writ inconsequential to IADA’s application); accord United States v. Williams, 615 F.2d 585, 590 (3d Cir.1980); United States v. Palmer, 574 F.2d 164 (3d Cir.1978).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Alabama v. Bozeman
SCOTUS · 2001 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare, e. g., United States v. Schrum, 638 F. 2d 214, 215 (CA10 1981) (per curiam) (adopting District Court’s literal interpretation of Agreement), with United States v. Daniels, 3 F. 3d 25, 27-28 (CA1 1993) (rejecting literal interpretation of Agreement).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Stephen Scott Crooker v. United States
1st Cir. · 1987 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare, e.g., United States v. Roy, 771 F.2d 54, 59-60 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, —U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 1520 , 89 L.Ed.2d 918 with United States v. Schrum, 504 F.Supp. 23, 26-28 (D.Kan.1980), aff 'd, 638 F.2d 214 (10th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Burrus
Ariz. · 1986 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Schrum, 638 F.2d 214, 215 (10th Cir.1981) (dismissal required by IAD where state prisoner taken for pretrial proceeding in federal court but not tried before being returned to state prison the same day); United States v. Thompson, 562 F.2d 232, 234 (3d Cir.1977) (same), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 949 , 98 S.Ct. 2858 , 56 L.Ed.2d 793 (1978); United States v. Cyphers, 556 F.2d 630, 635 (2d Cir.1977) (shuttling prisoner from state prison to federal prison and back again two years prior to trial violated Article IV(e)), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 950 , 98 S.Ct. 2858 , 56 L.Ed.2…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Higinbotham
Colo. · 1986 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Sassoon v. Stynchombe, 654 F.2d 371, 374-75 (5th Cir.1981) (dismissal not required when record shows no injury to the defendant), with United States v. Thompson, 562 F.2d 232, 234-35 (3rd Cir.1977) (en banc) (clear provisions of the IAD must be applied and charges dismissed without a need for reference to the purposes of the act), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 949 , 98 S.Ct. 2858 , 56 L.Ed.2d 793 (1978), and United States v. Schrum, 504 F.Supp. 23, 25-28 (D.Kan.1980) (same), aff'd per curiam, 638 F.2d 214 (10th Cir.1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Albert W. Schrum United States of America v. William K. Vanwinkle United States of America v. Stephen J. Thompson United States of America v. Basil Dickey Stone United States of America v. William G. Grimes
80-1202.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Jan 8, 1981.
638 F.2d 214
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

638 F.2d 214

UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Albert W. SCHRUM Defendant-Appellee,
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
William K. VANWINKLE Defendant-Appellee,
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Stephen J. THOMPSON Defendant-Appellee,
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Basil Dickey STONE Defendant-Appellee,
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
William G. GRIMES Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 80-1202 to 80-1206.

United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.

Submitted and Argued Dec. 15, 1980.
Decided Jan. 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.

Before HOLLOWAY, LOGAN and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

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.

2

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).