Higgins v. Binns

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

March 9, 1953.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1953-03-09

1 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 4244

Relies on Wells v. United States · Higgins v. Steele

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1953-03-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently November 2016

9 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

John Michael Higgins, in pro. per.

Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and HEALY and POPE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

It appearing that Higgins' petition for permission to prosecute his appeal in forma pauperis shows that it presents for consideration the following substantial questions: (a) whether he had been wrongfully deprived of bail where he is confined though not convicted of any crime and (b) whether one not convicted of a crime may be lawfully committed by a federal court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 4244, as mentally incompetent without benefit of a jury trial, and that Higgins has established that the district court's certificate that the appeal is not taken in good faith is "without warrant," Higgins v. Steele, 8 Cir., 195 F.2d 366, 369; Wells v. United States, 318 U.S. 257, 259, 63 S.Ct. 582, 87 L.Ed. 746.

¶2

It is ordered that Higgins may prosecute his appeal in forma pauperis.