Schramm v. Brady

Decision Date30 June 1942
Docket NumberNo. 4961.,4961.
Citation129 F.2d 108
PartiesSCHRAMM v. BRADY, Warden.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

J. Y. Jordan, Jr., of Asheville, N. C., for appellant.

William C. Walsh, Atty. Gen. (Robert E. Clapp, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. Bernard Wells, State's Atty., and Morton E. Rome, Asst. State's Atty., both of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PARKER, DOBIE, and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a refusal to discharge on habeas corpus a person imprisoned under the judgment of a state court on a conviction of robbery. The state court duly appointed counsel for the prisoner. Jury trial was waived and the prisoner was convicted of the crime charged, by the judge sitting as a jury. There is nothing in the contention that the prisoner was denied any rights under the Constitution of the United States because he was not tried by a jury, which he had waived in accordance with state practice. Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 20 S.Ct. 494, 44 L.Ed. 597. Nor can the writ of habeas corpus be used to review alleged error of the state court in admitting evidence of a confession, for habeas corpus cannot be used as a writ of error. Woolsey v. Best, 299 U.S. 1, 57 S.Ct. 2, 81 L.Ed. 3; Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 33 S.Ct. 945, 57 L.Ed. 1274, 46 L.R. A.,N.S., 397; Glasgow v. Moyer, 225 U.S. 420, 32 S.Ct. 753, 56 L.Ed. 1147. There is no basis in the record before us for any contention that the confession was obtained through force or threats or inducement of the law enforcement officers of the state, and consequently nothing upon which a finding that there was a denial of due process could be grounded. Lisenba v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 219, 62 S.Ct. 280, 86 L.Ed. ___. The order appealed from will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Curran v. Shuttleworth, 11024.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • March 27, 1950
    ...errors complained of can not be reviewed by writ of habeas corpus, which can not be used as a substitute for writ of error, Schramm v. Brady, 4 Cir., 129 F.2d 108, or appeal, Leonard v. Hudspeth, Warden, 10 Cir., 112 F.2d 121. The defects in procedure in the arrest are not ground for discha......
  • Bankers Life Co. v. Havel, 12239.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • July 10, 1942

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT