Mallonee v. Lanier
| Decision Date | 10 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 22069.,22069. |
| Citation | 354 F.2d 940 |
| Parties | Eugene E. MALLONEE, Appellant, v. Sidney LANIER, Warden, Texas Department of Corrections, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Eugene E. Mallonee, pro se.
Sam R. Wilson, Houston, Tex., Lonny F. Zwiener, Austin, Tex., Asst. Attys. Gen. of Texas, Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Stanton Stone, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Howard M. Fender, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, COLEMAN, Circuit Judge, and HUNTER, District Judge.
Mallonee is confined in the Texas State Penitentiary serving a sentence of life imprisonment resulting from his conviction of the offense of rape. He brought this habeas corpus proceeding alleging that he had been deprived of his liberty without due process of law. This is an appeal from a judgment discharging the writ and remanding petitioner to the custody of the respondent warden.
The principal assignment of error is the finding of the district judge that Mallonee was not denied a fair trial, simply because he was brought to the state court room in handcuffs, which were removed promptly upon arrival there. There was no showing that appellant was observed in handcuffs by any member of the jury. At the most, we have a showing of a possibility of prejudice. This is not enough. Prejudice must be established "not as a matter of speculation but as a demonstrable reality."1
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Webster v. Estelle
...236, 242, 143 A.L.R. 435 (1942). See Stroble v. California, 343 U.S. 181, 198, 72 S.Ct. 599, 607, 96 L.Ed. 872 (1952); Mallonee v. Lanier, 5 Cir., 1966, 354 F.2d 940; United States v. Branan, 6 Cir., 1972, 457 F.2d 1062, 1066; Barbara v. Johnson, 6 Cir., 1971, 449 F.2d 1235, 1237; United St......
-
Hardin v. Estelle, MO-71-CA-101.
...The mere fact that jurors have seen a defendant's shackles, however, does not necessarily void his conviction. Cf. Mallonee v. Lanier, 354 F.2d 940 (5th Cir. 1966). 11 Even if he had been unshackled, because of his prior convictions, as a matter of trial strategy the petitioner may never ha......
-
State v. Kile
...U.S. 959, 94 S.Ct. 1976, 40 L.Ed.2d 310 (1974); People v. Boose, 66 Ill.3d 261, 5 Ill.Dec. 832, 362 N.E.2d 303 (1977); Mallonee v. Lanier, 354 F.2d 940 (5th Cir. 1966); State v. Polidor, 130 Vt. 34, 285 A.2d 770 (1971); Sparkman v. State, 27 Wis.2d 92, 133 N.W.2d 776 (1965). See also Estell......
-
Haggard v. State of Ala.
...Haggard had the burden to prove this fact on a habeas corpus petition. Possibility of prejudice is not sufficient. Mallonee v. Lanier,354 F.2d 940 (5th Cir. 1966). Furthermore, Haggard has not made the showing, essential to his due process claim, that the state compelled him over his actual......