REASONS FOR INCREASES

Mr. RILEY. I note that in 1960 you returned to the Treasury some $24,000 out of your appropriation of $425,000 and in 1961, apparently, you were able to absorb the increase in salaries which was voted by Congress.

Judge QUINN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. You were able to absorb all of it?

Mr. RILEY. Apparently so.

Judge QUINN. Yes, sir; we did.

Mr. PROULX. We have absorbed it all, Congressman.

Mr. RILEY. In view of your economical operations for those 2 years, would you explain to the committee why $20,000 more is necessary this year?

Mr. WYLIE. May I answer that question, Mr. Riley?

Mr. RILEY. Yes, Mr. Wylie.

Mr. WYLIE. You will note that the average employment in the court has been running about 38 or 39 people. We have an authorization in the appropriation for 41 personnel. Therefore, actually, there is a net increase of $15,000 in personnel compensation and personnel benefits to provide for a full strength in fiscal year 1962. We have 40 man-years of employment in lieu of 38, which we anticipate in 1960 and 1961. The increase over 1960 is due to the pay increase.

We have the increase in travel and transportation and then some minor increases in printing and reproduction, supplies and materials and equipment, normally due to the general increase in prices and costs. However, the $20,000 is attributable primarily to the increase in the man-years of employment in 1962 as compared with 1960 and 1961.

Mr. RILEY. The total request is $445,000?

Mr. WYLIE. That is correct, sir.

Mr. RILEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Wylie.

COURT WORKLOAD

Mr. SIKES. Judge, you do not have much of a backlog of cases. Apparently, you are staying pretty well current. Am I misreading your tables in that regard?

Judge QUINN. We are practically current, Congressman. Every case that is ready to be heard has been heard and every opinion will be published by the end of this month that involves cases heard in February. We are absolutely square with the board. Of course, the petitions are coming in all the time, but we are completely current. Mr. SIKES. You are the only court I know of that is. How do you achieve that pleasant status?

Judge QUINN. Well, of course, our volume is off, Congressman, from what it was 3 or 4 years ago. In 1957 we wrote 309 opinions, which for a three-man court was almost a superhuman job, but this year we will probably write 150 opinions which for a three-man court is a fairly good-sized job. I think the average judge of a supreme court of each of the States writes about 17 opinions each. Therefore, we still have a large volume, but we work at it and while, undoubtedly, there are very, very many Federal judges on the courts of

appeals and the district courts who turn out a good days' work, perhaps, there are a lot of them who do not. I think the answer to it is that we simply decided-I told President Truman when he first asked me to take over as chief judge of this court that I would see to it that the cases were disposed of expeditiously and that justice would be done, and that the work would be kept up to date, and I have been trying to keep that promise.

Mr. SIKES. I think that is a very fine record.

DENIALS OF PETITIONS

I note this: Out of the total of 14,513 petitions, you have denied 12,618. That would appear to be an extremely high percentage of denials. Would you comment on the circumstances which bring about this high percentage of denials?

Judge QUINN. Well, of course, a large number of those cases, Congressman, would be guilty pleas. Of course, my experience as a judge in the criminal courts in Rhode Island before I came to work here, indicated that, of course, very, very, many of the criminal cases were disposed of by pleas of guilty or pleas of nolo. We have very many of those. But, in addition to that we do carefully examine every record that comes in to us. Every record is carefully examined to find out whether in our opinion there is an error of law. We pass only on questions of law except, of course, where law and fact fade into the sufficiency of the evidence; but if there is any question at all about the rights of the accused, we are inclined to grant. In other words, we give him the benefit of the doubt in every instance. Mr. SIKES. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FLOOD. As an old trial lawyer on both sides of the table, that is a very, very impressive statement: The soldier gets the benefit of the doubt.

Judge QUINN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. I am glad to hear it. I do not know if my colleagues know this or not and I do not know whether you have ever mentioned this or not, but I think you should know about a case in which I was involved and which involved a rather unusual set for circumstances several years ago. I had occasion to appear as amicus curiae, essentially, before this court and I think you would like to know that I have argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and before my own supreme court many, many times, but I never saw a more dignified conduct of a court. The whole atmosphere and the whole manner was as solemn and as dignified and as strict as was any time I appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court. I was very much impressed by it. I did not know what to expect, but was very much impressed with the way you ran the shop and the whole atmosphere. I do not know whether I ever told you that, but it was certainly true. Judge QUINN. I thank you very much.

Mr. FLOOD. I do not think our Members realize this. I would like them to drop down there, especially members of this committee, at least once some day.

Judge QUINN. We would be delighted.

Mr. FLOOD. And watch this court operate in full dress. It is very interesting.

Judge QUINN. We would be very glad to have you gentlemen visit with us.

TYPES OF CASES

Mr. FLOOD. What kind of cases are showing up this season? I mean, what is the stock in trade this season? Is there anything special?

Judge QUINN. There have been two or three murder cases-pretty bad ones-Congressman, and many, many robbery cases and rape cases. Mr. FLOOD. ZI or oversea murders?

Judge QUINN. Mostly oversea, although one was in San Francisco which was a very, very bad case.

Mr. FLOOD. Cases where one serviceman murdered another?

Judge QUINN. Yes; an enlisted man murdered an officer, shooting him through the mouth and shooting him two or three times and killing him, saying he meant to do it and so forth. It is now pending review before the President. We affirmed the conviction in that case. Mr. FLOOD. What was the sentence?

Judge QUINN. Death.

Mr. FLOOD. You affirmed that case?

Judge QUINN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. It is now on appeal to the executive branch?

Judge QUINN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. In the last 5 years how many affirmations have you passed down on capital punishment?

Judge QUINN. Well, altogether, we have affirmed 32 death cases involving 37 individuals. Nine of them have been executed. The others have either been commuted to life or to 50 years or 35 years or something of that kind by the President.

Mr. FLOOD. All of them murder cases? Is that your only sentence, for murder? I have not seen any other. What are your other capital

offenses?

Judge QUINN. Rape, and I think two or three of those involved murder and rape.

Mr. FLOOD. Rape, and murder in the course of rape; is that right? Judge QUINN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. Overseas?

Judge QUINN. Yes, sir; all overseas, except this last Henderson case which was in San Francisco on board ship.

Mr. PROULX. That was the first Navy case.

Judge QUINN. It was the first Navy case, I guess, since 1849. Mr. FLOOD. Since when?

Judge QUINN. 1849, I think it was.

Mr. FLOOD. The first Navy what?

Judge QUINN. Death sentence.

Mr. FLOOD. Of an enlisted man since 1849?

Judge QUINN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. This is the case where he shot the officer?

Judge QUINN. Yes, sir.

Mr. PROULX. It was a colored boy who shot an ensign.

Mr. FLOOD. What was his mitigation? What did he say?

Judge QUINN. Well, as a matter of fact, he had been given orders that he refused to obey and he said he made up his mind that he was

going to kill this fellow and he just insisted on doing it. That is all. Mr. FLOOD. Have there been any other types of cases? In other words they have been primarily crimes of passion which are showing up now?

Judge QUINN. There have been a good many robbery cases, Congressman, where some of these

Mr. FLOOD. Highway robbery?

Judge QUINN. Cases where some of these fellows get liquored up and get into a taxicab and hit the driver over the head and take his money away from him. I would say in almost every instance there would be liquor involved, where they would get a few drinks and then go out and indicate their "Dutch" courage by slugging somebody or taking away his bankroll, or they had run out of money at some gasthaus in Germany or something of that kind. Most armed robbery cases involved liquor and I think most rapes would be predicated upon a liberal consumption of liquor.

Mr. FLOOD. What about your officer personnel?

Judge QUINN. Well, I should say, mainly, bad check offenses would be the ones involved there.

Mr. FLOOD. Cases involving junior officers, I suppose?

Judge QUINN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. Officers married with families?

Judge QUINN. Yes, sir. They get into financial difficulties. Then, of course, there have been a small number of homosexual offenses involving officers.

Mr. FLOOD. Is any of that stuff showing up any more than the average number of cases you have been handling?

Judge QUINN. No; I would say the average is, perhaps, about the same over the last 10 years.

Mr. FLOOD. The average defendant is probably some family man in financial difficulties more than anything else?

Judge QUINN. Yes, sir; I do not believe

Mr. FLOOD. You have a run of those?

Judge QUINN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. Involving junior officers?

Judge QUINN. They run up to major, perhaps.
Mr. FLOOD. Field grade?

Judge QUINN. Yes, sir; but not very many of them. We have had one flag officer whose diary fell into the hands of the Russians and he was court-martialed and, of course, was convicted. We did affirm the conviction. It was a rather sad case.

Mr. FLOOD. I remember that case.

Judge QUINN. We did have an admiral involved in a homosexual

case.

Mr. FLOOD. I remember the diary case.

You did not get that case of the admiral and the liquor from the Far East, did you?

Judge QUINN. No, sir; that was tried in the U.S. district court in San Francisco.

Mr. FLOOD. Now, every once in a while when you come up here we forget to ask you about something and you are just bursting out all over to tell us something we forgot to ask you about.

Do you have any pet story you want to brag about this year or anything?

67438-61-pt. 2- 67

Judge QUINN. No, sir; I never do any bragging, Congressman. Mr. FLOOD. Do you not have anything you want to tell us that is a little indiscreet? Here is your chance.

CHANGES IN CODE AND PROCEDURES

Judge QUINN. We are still, of course, wrestling with our desire to get some amendments to the code and we have some reason to believe that Mr. Kilday's subcommittee may get around to hearing the question of whether or not the code should be amended. Of course, we think the law officers who are the judges that now preside over the courts-martial should be made judges and should be given complete independence; that they become judges in the same sense that our Federal district court judges are judges; that the boards of review that act as intermediate appellate courts for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard should be given complete independence of the military hierarchy and, perhaps, should be appointed by the Secretary of Defense or by the President. Then, of course, we feel, as the House originally provided, that this court should be put on a par with the other Federal courts and given life tenure, and we are going to ask for that from the Armed Services Committee, if and when we have the opportunity. We hope that it will be sometime this spring. Mr. FLOOD. What is the scuttlebutt or what is the atmosphere on that? Do you know?

Judge QUINN. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.)

ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGES

Mr. FLOOD. What about my pet hate, administrative discharges? Judge QUINN. Well, of course, as far as undesirable discharges are concerned, Congressman, I think they are too severe a penalty to be administered without a court-martial, unless the individuals that are faced with them, after complete legal advice, come to the conclusion that they want them. I mean most homosexuals, if they want an undesirable discharge in order to avoid a court-martial and are fully advised of their rights, I think, perhaps, they should be given administratively.

Mr. FLOOD. Our experience always indicated that any of these homos will always admit it. So, that is a different kind of case, but you know the kind I do not like. I do not like some two-striper passing out these administrative discharges like cigarstore coupons.

Judge QUINN. I think it is very unfortunate that they are permitted to do it. I do not think any undesirable discharge should be permitted, except as the result of a court-martial, except in the instance I indicated. If it is a general discharge or discharge under honorable conditions, that is a matter for the military's administration. I do not think that is anything we have anything to do with, but if a man goes out with an undesirable discharge and he goes into the community under a cloud, he is in just as much trouble as if he had a DD or BCD. He cannot get a job with a bank or insurance company or a fiduciary, nor can he get a job at Electric Boat in Groton, Conn., or General Dynamics or any of the other of our large corporations that are doing business for the Government. He does not find out,