In re Thompson's Petition
Decision Date | 10 April 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 13689.,13689. |
Parties | Petition of William G. THOMPSON for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. William G. Thompson, Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Archibald Kreiger, Paterson, N. J. (John G. Thevos, Passaic County Prosecutor, Paterson, N. J., on the brief), for respondent.
Before GOODRICH, KALODNER and GANEY, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant, William G. Thompson, contends that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial under the Federal Constitution because he was unduly prejudiced by (1) the introduction of incorrect anatomical measurements by the State at his trial, and (2) the instructions of the trial court concerning aiding and abetting.
Thompson is being confined by the State of New Jersey as a result of his having been convicted of causing a miscarriage by instrument resulting in the death of the victim in violation of N.J.S. 2A:87-1, N.J.S.A. His conviction was reversed by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, on the ground that the trial court's charge on aiding and abetting was fundamental error. That Court awarded him a new trial; one judge dissented. New Jersey v. Thompson, 56 N.J.Super. 438, 153 A.2d 364 (1959). On appeal by the State, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, in a per curiam decision, reinstated the conviction for the reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion of the Superior Court, Appellate Division, 31 N.J. 540, 158 A.2d 333 (1960). Thompson's petition for rehearing was denied. Thereafter, without pursuing any of the collateral remedies that were available to him in the Courts of New Jersey, he filed a petition and supplemental petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. That Court denied the petitions on their merits. Pursuant to authority granted by 28 U.S. C.A. § 2253, the Chief Judge of this Circuit issued a certificate of probable cause.
At the outset, the respondent contends that the petition, as supplemented, should have been denied on the ground that Thompson has not exhausted the remedies available to him in the State Courts as required by § 2254 of the Judicial Code.1 It is sometimes difficult, as here, to determine whether a petitioner has exhausted the remedies available to him in the State Courts. Although the Supreme Court of New Jersey has not expressly passed on his first contention, we think he has sufficiently presented to that Court and in his petition for writ of certiorari, the contentions he makes here. In Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, at p. 447, 73 S.Ct. 397, at p. 402, 97 L.Ed. 469, the Supreme Court of the United States said: "It is not necessary in such circumstances for the prisoner to ask the state for collateral relief, based on the same evidence and issues already decided by direct review with another petition for certiorari directed to this Court." But even if Thompson has not exhausted his State remedies, it was permissible for the District Court to reach the merits since it denied the petition. Our Court of Appeals stated in the case of In re Ernst's Petition, 294 F.2d 556, 561-562 (C.A.3, 1961): ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scruggs v. Rhay
...being entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. See McBee v. Bomar, 296 F.2d 235 (6th Cir.1961); In re Thompson's Petition, 301 F.2d 659 (3d Cir.1962); Mills v. Tinsley, 314 F.2d 311 (10th Cir.1963); United States ex rel. Everett v. Murphy, 329 F.2d 68 (2d (4) The federal c......
-
White v. Rhay
...being entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. See McBee v. Bomar, 296 F.2d 235 (6th Cir. 1961); In re Thompson's Petition, 301 F.2d 659 (3d Cir. 1962); Mills v. Tinsley, 314 F.2d 311 (10th Cir. 1963); United States ex rel. Everett v. Murphy, 329 F.2d 68 (2d Cir. (4) The f......
-
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 16077.
...a ruling against the merits of a state prisoner's petition, United States ex rel. Drew v. Myers, 327 F.2d 174 (CA 3, 1964); In re Thompson, 301 F.2d 659 (CA 3, 1962); In re Ernst, 294 F.2d 556 (CA 3, 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 917, 82 S.Ct. 198, 7 L.Ed.2d 132 We shall discuss the merits ......
-
United States ex rel. Reed v. Anderson, 140.
...wherein he raised and presented the same Federal issues which he raises in his application before this Court. In re Thompson's Petition, 301 F.2d 659 (C.A. 3, 1962). The basis for Reed's complaint is that following his arrest, while he was in custody, the alleged robbery victim made an out-......