Osborne v. Swope, 14697.
| Decision Date | 27 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 14697.,14697. |
| Citation | 226 F.2d 908 |
| Parties | Kethel OSBORNE, Appellant, v. E. B. SWOPE, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Alcatraz, California, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Kethel Osborne, in pro. per.
Lloyd H. Burke, U. S. Atty., Richard H. Foster, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and HEALY and BONE, Circuit Judges
Osborne, a negro, convicted by a court martial of crimes while a member of the United States Army, and presently a prisoner at the federal penitentiary at Alcatraz, California, appeals from the denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus by the United States District Court.
The application alleges he had exhausted his administrative remedies in the military practice and therefore he is entitled to have considered his contention that he had been tried by a general court martial, a member of which previous to the trial had "threatened" Osborne, "promising to find him guilty, irrespective of the evidence", and hence he has been denied due process and the military court was without jurisdiction to try him. Johnson v. Zerbst, 1937, 304 U.S. 458, 467-468, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461.
One of Osborne's administrative remedies is the right to seek a new trial within a year after the judgment of the court martial. Article 73 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 50 U.S.C.A. § 660. The statute provides, so far as pertinent:
"At any time within one year after approval by the convening authority of a court-martial sentence which extends to * * * confinement for one year or more, the accused may petition The Judge Advocate General for a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence or fraud on the court. * *" (Emphasis supplied.)
Obviously the participation of such a prejudiced officer is a "fraud on the court". His sentence was for more than a year and the question is, whether Osborne is in a position to urge it in a habeas corpus proceeding in a civil court.
Osborne admits he did not petition the Judge Advocate General for such a new trial. In effect his contention is that he can seek it now.
We do not agree. The Supreme Court, in Gusik v. Schilder, 1950, 340 U.S. 128, 71 S.Ct. 149, 95 L.Ed. 146, a habeas corpus proceeding like the instant case, in which the military criminal procedure is likened to that procedure in the state courts, holds that a convicted soldier must apply for a new trial under Article 73 before he may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Varney's Petition
...questions of jurisdiction which petitioner may offer." The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has followed Gusik v. Schilder in Osborne v. Swope, 1955, 226 F.2d 908, affirming the action of the District Court in dismissing a petition for habeas corpus. The Court of Appeals held, on the ......
-
Osborn v. Swope, 14849.
...F.2d 680; Hunter v. Beets, 10 Cir., 180 F.2d 101; United States ex rel. Giese v. Chamberlin, 7 Cir., 184 F.2d 404. See also Osborne v. Swope, 9 Cir., 226 F.2d 908, involving Article 73 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 50 U.S.C.A. § 660, 64 Stat. 8 Cf. Gusik v. Schilder, supra. 9 See......
-
Lee v. Madigan, 35907.
...53 of War, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1525,1 and therefore this Court could not entertain his petition. Both Osborn v. Swope, supra, and Osborne v. Swope, 9 Cir., 226 F.2d 908, support respondent's view. These cases, following the Supreme Court holding in Gusik v. Schilder, 340 U.S. 128, 71 S.Ct. 149, 9......