Mosley v. Smith
| Decision Date | 04 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 26227.,26227. |
| Parties | Russell MOSLEY, Appellant, v. Lamont SMITH, Warden, Georgia State Prison, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Thomas F. Walsh, Savannah, Ga., for appellant.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Mathew Robins, John W. Hinchey, Asst. Attys. Gen., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before BELL and MORGAN, Circuit Judges, and GUINN, District Judge.
This is an appeal from the District Court's denial of a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner of the State of Georgia. The case has been before this Court previously and is reported in Mosley v. Dutton, 367 F.2d 913 (5 Cir., 1966).
The District Court's judgment is affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part.
On this appeal four issues are presented which are enumerated as follows:
1. Was the appellant, a white male, denied equal protection because he was indicted by a grand jury and tried by a petit jury from which Negroes and women were excluded? The Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the appellant's contention that his constitutional rights were violated by the reason of the grand and petit jury systems as they applied to his indictment and trial.
2. Should the District Court's finding that perjured testimony was not used to convict the appellant be overturned? We think not. It appears from the record that the evidence that perjured testimony was used to convict the appellant was expressly rebutted and contradicted by the sworn testimony of Sheriff Lewis, Deputy Sheriff Strange, Solicitor General McMillan, and the jailer. In a habeas corpus proceeding, a finding of fact on conflicting evidence should not be disturbed on appeal and should not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Carroll v. Beto, (5 Cir., 1968), 402 F.2d 61.
3. Was the appellant deprived of due process by inadequate representation of his appointed counsel at his trial? After a perusal of the record, we believe that the appellant had adequate counsel at his trial. Relief from a final conviction of incompetent or ineffective counsel will be granted only when the trial was a farce, or a mockery of justice, or was shocking to the conscience of the reviewing court, or the purported representation was only per-functory, in bad faith, a sham, a pretense, or without adequate opportunity for conference and preparation. Williams v. Beto, 354 F.2d 698, 704 (5 Cir., 1965); Horsley v. Simpson, 400 F.2d 708 (5 Cir., 1968).
4. Was the appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herring v. Estelle
...5th Cir. 1970, 432 F.2d 1; United States v. Long, 5th Cir. 1969, 419 F.2d 91; Foster v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 892; Mosley v. Smith, 5th Cir. 1968, 404 F.2d 346; White v. McHan, 5th Cir. 1967, 386 F.2d 817; Quarles v. Dutton, 5th Cir. 1967, 379 F.2d 934; Odom v. United States, 5th Ci......
-
Gurrieri v. Gunn
...caused the trial to be a farce or a mockery of justice. Musgrove v. Eyman, 435 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir. 1971); Mosley v. Smith, 404 F.2d 346 (5th Cir. 1968). It has been held that the possibility that more or better evidence could have been produced does not prove that the petitioner was i......
-
Moore v. Beto
...and rendered legal services far superior to those which have been held to satisfy minimal due process requirements. Mosley v. Smith, 404 F.2d 346 (5th Cir. 1968); Horsley v. Simpson, 400 F.2d 708, 710-711 (5th Cir. 1968); Williams v. Beto, 354 F.2d 698, 704 (5th Cir. Claim Five Lastly, peti......
-
United States ex rel. Geralds v. Deegan
...(1965); Schowgurow v. State, 240 Md. 121, 213 A.2d 475 (1965). But see Salisbury v. Grimes, 406 F.2d 50 (5th Cir. 1969); Mosley v. Smith, 404 F.2d 346 (5th Cir. 1968). 5 Whitus v. Georgia, supra, 385 U.S. at 550, 87 S.Ct. 643. 6 Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 74 S.Ct. 667, 98 L.Ed. 866 (......