Frad v. Kelly

Background

A man pleaded guilty to three federal indictments in the Southern District of New York. A judge from another district (Judge Inch), temporarily assigned to sit in the Southern District, sentenced him on one indictment and suspended sentences on the other two, placing the defendant on probation to begin after serving the first sentence. After Judge Inch returned to his own district, the defendant asked him in chambers to end the probation under the Probation Act. The probation officer attended a hearing, and Judge Inch entered an order discharging the defendant and terminating the proceedings. Later, the local probation officer and the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District challenged that order and sought to act in the court where the conviction was recorded.

Reasoning

The main question was whether a judge who had been temporarily assigned to another district could, after returning to his home district, decide a new application to end a defendant’s probation. The Court explained that the assignment law lets a judge finish or prepare records for matters already submitted to him while sitting in the other district, but it does not authorize him to decide new matters after his assignment ends. The Probation Act places supervision and decisions about probation with the court where the conviction and sentence are recorded. For those reasons, the Court held the out-of-district order was null and could not be validated by the probation officer’s participation or by agreement of the U.S. Attorney.

Real world impact

The decision makes clear that only the court that recorded a federal conviction may control probation supervision, discharge a probationer, or terminate proceedings. Probation officers, prosecutors, and defendants must take probation disputes to the court of conviction rather than to a judge who only sat temporarily in that court.