Charles Evans Whittaker

“ They contend that to hold their appeals to have been untimely, in these circumstances, would be to mutilate that plain language of Rule 37 (a) (2) and to make of it a trap even for the wary-including their experienced and competent counsel who were doing their best to protect petitioners' rights of appeal. And they insist that such a snare should not be permitted to deprive one of the valuable right of an appeal upon which his liberty, or even his life, may well depend. ”

“ Soon after the conclusion of that rather protracted trial, the court, on June 19, 1959, orally pronounced its judgment convicting petitioners and sentencing them to imprisonment. [4] Three days later, on June 22, formal judgment was prepared, signed by the judge and filed with the clerk. The next day, June 23, petitioners filed their separate 'motion (s) in arrest of judgment.' [5] Those motions were denied on July 13. Two days later, on July 15, petitioners filed their separate notices of appeal from the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. ”

“ United States, 10 Cir., 273 F.2d 462, holding, on similar facts, that Rule 37 (a) (2) alone and unaffected by any other Rule prescribes the time within which an appeal must be taken to a Court of Appeals in a criminal case, and further buttressed by their belief that this Court, too, so held, even if sub silentio, in exercising jurisdiction, under facts virtually identical to those here, in Sullivan v. United States, 348 U.S. 170, 75 S.Ct. 182, 99 L.Ed. 210, petitioners point to the facts that Rule 37 (a) (2) is captioned 'Time for Taking Appeal' ”