Wiley Blount Rutledge, United States v. Brown (333 U.S. 18…
“ The legislation reflects an unmistakable intention to provide punishment for escape or attempted escape to be superimposed upon the punishment meted out for previous offenses. This appears from the face of the statute itself. It first provides that persons escaping or attempting to escape while in custody, whether before or after conviction, shall be guilty of an offense. ”
Wiley Blount Rutledge, United States v. Brown (333 U.S. 18…
“ The judge is completely interdicted for imposing an additional sentence for escape or attempt to escape, the one type of offense which Congress unmistakably intended to be subject to separate and added punishment, although he may direct that a sentence for any other federal offense shall begin at the expiration of consecutive sentences theretofore imposed.No rule of construction necessitates our acceptance of an interpretation resulting in patently absurd consequences. ”
Wiley Blount Rutledge, United States v. Brown (333 U.S. 18…
“ In a very practical sense, a person in custody under several consecutive sentences is being 'held' under the combined sentences. And the legislative language is a natural, though not nicely precise, way of stating the purpose that the sentence for escape shall begin upon the expiration of the aggregate of the terms of imprisonment imposed by earlier sentences. ”
