Padgett v. Graham, P--73--427
| Decision Date | 11 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. P--73--427,P--73--427 |
| Citation | 516 P.2d 1375 |
| Parties | Wayne PADGETT, Petitioner, v. Raymond GRAHAM, District Judge, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
ORDER DENYING ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF PROHIBITION, MANDAMUS AND/OR HABEAS CORPUS
On this 11th day of December, 1973, the above styled and numbered case comes on for hearing pursuant to order entered December 5, 1973, the petitioner appearing by his attorney of record, Mr. Paul E. Garrison, 300 Pythian Building, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and the respondent, The Honorable Raymond Graham, District Judge, appearing by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, and the Office of the District Attorney of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Both parties announce ready.
Whereupon, the Court announces that it assumes original jurisdiction herein, and proceeds with the hearing, permits the agreeable introduction of a properly certified Transcript of Proceedings held before respondent on December 4, 1973, in re: Grand Jury, No. C--73--2128 in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, hears statements and arguments of respective counsel, and having considered the same and the authorities cited, finds, under the provisions of Article 2, Section 27 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, as amended in 1971, which provides, in part, as follows:
'Any person having knowledge or possession of facts that tend to establish the guilt of any other person or corporation under the laws of the State shall not be excused from giving testimony or producing evidence, when legally called upon so to do, on the ground that it may tend to incriminate him under the laws of the State; but no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may so testify or produce evidence. * * *'
A witness duly sworn but claiming under the Fifth Amendment, may be cited for direct contempt of court for refusal to testify before a Grand Jury after having been directed to do so by the District Judge presiding over the Grand Jury who has first proceeded in substantial compliance with the procedural rules set forth in Layman v. Webb, Okl.Cr., 350 P.2d 323, 331, 332, and the court has jurisdiction so to do without the state offering any evidence or the court making any determination or finding that said witness has knowledge or possession of facts that tend to establish the guilt of any other person or corporation under the laws of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yoho, In re
...Boyd, 36 N.J. 285, 176 A.2d 793 (1962); State v. Granchay, 1 Ohio App.2d 307, 30 Ohio Ops.2d 310, 204 N.E.2d 562 (1964); Padgett v. Graham, Okl.Cr. 516 P.2d 1375 (1973); Re Petition of Start, 186 Pa.Super. 509, 142 A.2d 449 (1958); In Matter of Salvesen, 78 Wash.2d 41, 469 P.2d 898 We belie......
- Sanchez v. State
-
Clem v. State
...We disagree. To accept appellant's claim would require this Court to overrule twenty-four years of precedent. See Padgett v. Graham, 516 P.2d 1375, 1376 (Okl.Cr.1973); Layman v. Webb, 350 P.2d at 330 (Okl.Cr.1960). Appellant has presented no compelling reason for this Court to change this h......