Larry Bridges, Edward W. Hazley, Douglas McArthur George McArthur Michael McArthur Josephine McNeil & Joan Nabor v. United States, 588 F.2d 911 (4th Cir. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Larry Bridges, Edward W. Hazley, Douglas McArthur George McArthur Michael McArthur Josephine McNeil & Joan Nabor v. United States, 588 F.2d 911 (4th Cir. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Cameron (med, 2010-03-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Cameron
D. Me. · 2010 · confidence medium
In United States v. Barcelon, the Tenth Circuit catalogued some factors courts typically examine in addition to the defendant’s assets, liabilities, income, and obligations: *129 Other factors which courts have considered include: the needs of the defendant and his family, United States v. Harris, 707 F.2d 653, 661 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 997 , 104 S.Ct. 495 , 78 L.Ed.2d 688 (1983); U.S. v. Bracewell, 569 F.2d 1194, 1200 (2nd Cir.1978); the amount the defendant posted as bail, see VII Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures: Appointment of Counsel in Criminal Cases para. 2.04 a…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ener
E.D. Pa. · 2003 · confidence medium
In Bridges v. United States, six defendants were indicted on narcotics charges and were released pending trial once the clerk of the court received the required cash bonds. 588 F.2d 911, 912 (4th Cir.1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Knott
S.D.N.Y. · 2001 · confidence medium
In United States v. Barcelon, 833 F.2d 894 , 897 n. 5 (10th Cir.1987), the Court catalogued some of the factors that courts examine in addition to the defendant’s assets, liabilities, income, and obligations, as follows: [T]he needs of the defendant and, his family, United States v. Harris, 707 F.2d 653, 661 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 997 , 104 S.Ct. 495 , 78 L.Ed.2d 688 (1983); U.S. v. Bracewell, 569 F.2d 1194, 1200 (2d Cir. 1978); the amount the defendant posted as bail, see VII Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures: Appointment of Counsel in Criminal Cases ¶ 2.04, at 2-11 (19…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Santiago-Fraticelli
D.P.R. · 1993 · confidence medium
Other circumstantial evidence that courts have considered in determining financial eligibility includes the amount of bail posted, see VII Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures: Appointment of Counsel in Criminal Cases ¶ 2.04 at 2-11 (1987); monies given to defendant for other purposes, see Bridges v. United States, 588 F.2d 911, 912 (4th Cir.1978); the possibility that defendant has “secreted” funds, see United States v. Rubinson, 543 F.2d 951, 964 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 850 , 97 S.Ct. 139 , 50 L.Ed.2d 124 (1976); possible financial assistance from a spouse, see United S…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Gates
E.D. Va. · 1991 · confidence medium
Bridges v. U.S., 588 F.2d 911, 912 (4th Cir.1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Sidney Barcelon
10th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Other factors which courts have considered include: the needs of the defendant and his family, United States v. Harris, 707 F.2d 653, 661 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 997 , 104 S.Ct. 495 , 78 L.Ed.2d 688 (1983); U.S. v. Bracewell, 569 F.2d 1194, 1200 (2nd Cir.1978); the amount the defendant posted as bail, see VII Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures: Appointment of Counsel in Criminal Cases ¶ 2.04 at 2-11 (1987); the expense and extent of legal services which the defendant requires, Harris, 707 F.2d at 661 , United States v. Coniam, 574 F.Supp. 615, 618 (D.Conn.1983); United Stat…
cited Cited "see" United States v. Bogart
S.D. Ohio · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bridges v. United States, 588 F.2d 911, 913 (4th Cir.1978).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Harvey Rubenstein, Bernard C. Sherman, Claimant-Appellant v. City National Bank, Cross-Claimant-Appellee
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bridges v. United States, 588 F.2d 911, 912 (4th Cir.1978) (implicitly recognizing jurisdiction to hear petitions seeking return of bail funds in case where petitioners did not previously appear on the record). 4 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Larry BRIDGES, Edward W. Hazley, Douglas McArthur, George McArthur, Michael McArthur, Josephine McNeil and Joan Nabor, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
78-5078.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Dec 8, 1978.
588 F.2d 911
Thomas F. Loflin, III, and James R. Acker, Durham, N. C. (Loflin, Loflin, Galloway, Leary & Acker, Durham, N. C., on brief), for appellants., Jack B. Crawley, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Raleigh, N. C. (George M. Anderson, U. S. Atty., Raleigh, N. C., on brief), for appellee.
Butzner, Russell, Widener.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
[*912] DONALD RUSSELL, Circuit Judge:

Six defendants [1] were indicted in the district court along with one McArthur and others, for violation of the narcotics laws. Cash bonds were filed with the clerk of the court to secure their release pending trial. [2] There is no indication at the time the cash bonds were deposited with the clerk that the bonds were advanced by anyone other than the defendant for whom release was sought. Later the defendants were tried and convicted. Upon their conviction they were sentenced to substantial prison terms and, except for the defendant Gillis, ordered to pay large fines. [3] They unsuccessfully appealed their convictions. They are now serving their prison sentences but the fines imposed on them remain unpaid.

The present controversy concerns the cash bonds deposited with the clerk of court on behalf of the five defendants against whom fines were imposed. [4] It began after trial and pending appeal. The co-defendant McArthur, alleging that he had secured from his relatives and friends the monies for the cash bond deposited with the clerk on behalf of the defendants, moved the court to direct the clerk to pay the monies over to him, since the defendants had satisfied the terms of the bond by appearing at trial and by delivering themselves into custody after sentence. The government, on the other hand, moved that the money be held in trust for the payment of the defendants’ fines, pending appeal. Both of these motions were denied. The court found the claim of McArthur incredible and denied it. It, however, provided in its order of denial that “should the persons who allegedly contributed money make motions of their own for the return of the money, the court will be glad to hear them.” It denied the government’s motion for failure to serve the defendants with the motion. In this instance, it expressed a willingness to reconsider the motion of the government after proper notice to the interested parties.

Following the affirmance of the defendants’ convictions, the parties who allegedly advanced the cash bonds for the defendants through their relative and friend, the co-defendant McArthur, filed their petitions for the return of such portion of the cash bonds as they claimed they had advanced. Without an evidentiary hearing, the district court proceeded to deny the petitions and to order the application of the bond monies to the payment of the fines imposed on the defendants. In reaching this decision, the court reasoned that “there is a presumption that the money deposited by each defendant was his own where the names of third party claimants to the money did not appear of record in connection with the original deposits.” The petitioners have appealed. We remand with directions.

It is the position of the petitioners that the Bail Reform Act of 1966, 18 U.S.C. § 3146, removed any presumption in favor of the government in a case such as this, citing United States v. Bursey (5th Cir. 1975) 515 F.2d 1228, 1235 in support. Apart from any presumption, we agree with United States v. Bracewell (2d Cir. 1978) 569 F.2d 1194, 1200, that if the monies advanced by way of bonds for the defendants actually[*913] belonged to the petitioners and had been advanced by them, then “they are not ‘available for payment’ ” of the defendants’ fines and should be refunded to the petitioners. Whether this is the fact in this case can only be established after an evidentiary hearing. There has been no such hearing. We accordingly remand to the district court with instructions to grant the petitioners an evidentiary hearing.

REMANDED.

1

. These defendants were Leslie Arrington, Michael Arrington, Martin, Jennings, Gillis and Thomas.

2

. The bail deposits on behalf of the defendants were as follows:

Leslie Sharon Atkinson Arrington $10,000
Michael Otis Arrington $25,000
Monroe Lorenzo Martin, Jr. $5,000
Rudolph Valentino Jennings $10,000
Charles Murphy Gillis $5,000
William Thomas $10,000
3

. The fines imposed on the five defendants were:

Leslie Arrington $50,000
Michael Arrington $50,000
Martin $5,000
Jennings $25,000
Thomas $25,000
4

. The order of the district court does not indicate why the bond deposit made on behalf of Gillis is retained by the clerk. The court merely states that it is to be held subject to the further order of the court. The right of the government to retain this deposit should be resolved on remand.