Ex parte Estep
| Decision Date | 08 April 1955 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 5945. |
| Citation | 129 F. Supp. 557 |
| Parties | Ex parte William ESTEP and Dora Estep. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Dallas, Tex., Julien C. Hyer and John Webster, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Tex., for respondents.
Lester L. May and Howard Dailey, Dallas, Tex., for relators.
The relators are husband and wife, and extradition has been sought by the governor of the state of Illinois, through the governor of the state of Texas, such application having been made in the regular constitutional manner.
One of the applicants is in the hands of the United States Marshal for this district for an alleged federal offense, for which he has been convicted and the conviction is on appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The other is in the hands of the Sheriff of Dallas County for an alleged state offense, each of whom has been charged separately and jointly in different venues of the state of Texas.
I find the facts to be as stipulated by the attorneys in open court, and, summarily, they are, that the alleged illegal transactions took place first in Illinois, and then after their flight from Illinois, where each of them was convicted, and from those convictions each of the applicants sought relief from the courts of the state of Illinois, and having been refused there, to the Supreme Court of the United States, all of which courts refused relief.
After their flight into Texas they were arrested for various offenses and have appealed from convictions in the trial court and have gone to the court of the last resort, with the exception of appeal to the United States Supreme Court. These Texas convictions have been in both the state court and the federal court, as above indicated.
They seek release alleging illegal restraint. Such alleged illegality is based on the proposition that the husband and wife cannot be convicted for conspiring together, and in support of such contention the common law is cited, and some respectable decisions in this country of later years.
The convictions in the state of Illinois were for having conspired with others, which others were ultimately and finally dismissed from the case, or, rather, from the indictment, and the husband and wife were convicted. The Texas convictions in both state and federal court were also for conspiring together.
I am not at all convinced that the failure to prosecute the third party, or, parties, with whom the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Anthony
...States, 1946, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 254, 157 F.2d 209; Thompson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1955, 227 F.2d 671, 673, and see Ex Parte Estep, D.C.N.D.Tex.1955, 129 F.Supp. 557; 11 Am.Jur., Conspiracy, § 3; 15 C.J.S., Conspiracy, § 37; Vol. 2, Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed., §§ 600, 601; Id. Vol. 8, §§ ......
-
Thompson v. United States, 15489.
...are likewise at odds, as are the various state courts. See United States v. Shaddix, D. C.S.D.Miss., 43 F.Supp. 330; Ex parte Estep, D.C.N.D.Tex., 129 F.Supp. 557, 558; see also dissenting opinion of Chief Judge Hutcheson in Ansley v. United States, 5 Cir., 135 F.2d 207, 208; 11 Am. Jur., C......
-
Estep v. Decker, 15602.
...habeas corpus proceedings in the Texas courts and the district court below. See Ex Parte Estep, Tex.Cr.App., 276 S.W.2d 284; Id., D.C., 129 F.Supp. 557.1 In the instant proceeding, they sought release from their restraint by appellee, who is detaining them for further transfer to Illinois u......