Dean v. United States, 16125.
Decision Date | 20 May 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 16125.,16125. |
Citation | 265 F.2d 544 |
Parties | Mack DEAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Appellant pro se.
Edward L. Scheufler, U. S. Atty., and J. Whitfield Moody, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, VOGEL and MATTHES, Circuit Judges.
The appellant, Mack Dean, was charged in an indictment with the illegal sale, possession and concealment of heroin in violation of §§ 4704(a) and 4705(a), Title 26 U.S.C.A., and § 174 of Title 21 U.S.C.A. He was tried before a jury and on July 10, 1956, was found guilty of nine counts in the indictment. Thereafter he was sentenced to a total of 15 years' imprisonment. The conviction was appealed and upon such appeal was affirmed by this court, Dean v. United States, 8 Cir., 1957, 246 F.2d 335. On September 13, 1958, appellant filed a motion pursuant to § 2255, Title 28 U.S. C.A.
His first contention in the instant proceedings is that the sentence should be vacated and set aside on the grounds that he did not have a fair trial in that "* * * the Government knowingly used false testimony extorted from a witness by violence, threats, etc." He names three of the government witnesses whom he claims were coerced by the government into testifying falsely against him. The District Court overruled the appellant's motion without a hearing. Judge Duncan, before whom the original trial was also held, after calling attention to the fact that practically the same questions were raised by Dean in his prior appeal, concluded that:
The appellant is now before this court reasserting the contention upon which he received an adverse ruling before Judge Duncan.
As already pointed out, practically the same question was before this court in Dean's prior appeal, wherein it was argued by Dean that the witnesses involved were addicts or narcotic law violators and that their testimony was not worthy of belief. In disposing of that feature of the appeal, Chief Judge Gardner, speaking for this court, said, at page 336, of 246 F.2d:
We have again examined the record, including a transcript of the testimony of the witnesses whom the appellant now claims in this proceeding were coerced by the government into giving false testimony. Nothing therein justifies appellant's assertion. Granted, as this court pointed out in the former appeal, the witnesses were not of the best reputations, nevertheless their acts in making the narcotic buys were evidenced by other witnesses whose credibility has not been questioned. Appellant has here produced neither affidavits nor statements from the witnesses or others, nor has he suggested that he could produce evidence of any kind which might support his bare assertion that the testimony was perjured and that the government prosecutors were aware thereof and coerced the giving of such testimony. Appellant merely makes his unsupported charge and in support thereof presents a transcript of the examination and cross examination of the witnesses, a reading of which justifies no such conclusion. The bare assertion by a convicted defendant who has already had his case reviewed on appeal, wherein his contention was that the evidence was insufficient in that it was unworthy of belief, that he was convicted on coerced and perjured testimony with nothing more is a mere ipse dixit and does not entitle such party to a hearing under § 2255. Judge Duncan observed and heard the witnesses in the original trial. He gave consideration to appellant's present petition, viewing that petition in the light of his knowledge as the trial judge. Considered in the light of the entire record, he concluded that the appellant had had a fair trial and that he was entitled to no relief. We are in complete accord with that holding.
Appellant's second assertion is, "That by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Harflinger
...denial of a motion seeking to compel disclosure is certainly within the discretionary authority of the trial court. Dean v. United States, 265 F.2d 544, 547 (8th Cir. 1959); Ray v. United States, 367 F.2d 258, 263 n.5 (8th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 913, 87 S.Ct. 863, 17 L.Ed.2d 785......
-
Reddick v. State, 6551
...where 'there has been a deprivation of constitutional rights so fundamental as to amount to a denial of A fair trial'; Dean v. United States, C.A.Mo.1959, 265 F.2d 544, whether there had been 'a fair trial'; and Mason v. United States, 1951, 193 F.2d 23, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 1, where the test 'g......
-
United States v. Price
...States, 303 F.2d 454 (10th Cir. 1962). There are other Tenth Circuit cases which support the foregoing propositions, but Dean v. United States, 265 F.2d 544, cited by the government is not one of them. Dean is an Eighth Circuit case decided in The government relies on the following quotatio......
-
Peters v. Jamieson
...defendant is not entitled under the rules, i. e., in the absence of a statute, to a list of government witnesses, e. g., Dean v. United States, 265 F.2d 544 (8th Cir.); United States v. Lavery, 161 F.Supp. 283, 287 (M.D.Pa.); United States v. Brennan, 134 F.Supp. 42, 53 (D.C.Minn.); United ......