Price v. Johnston
| Decision Date | 09 September 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 10671.,10671. |
| Citation | 144 F.2d 260 |
| Parties | PRICE v. JOHNSTON, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Homer C. Price, in pro. per., for appellant.
Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., and A. J. Zirpoli, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before GARRECHT, STEPHENS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denying appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
On February 15, 1938, an indictment in four counts was returned by the Grand Jury of the trial court The District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, charging appellant with the violation of Section 588b (a) and (b) of Title 12 U.S. C.A.
The appellant was arraigned before the trial court on February 18, 1938, at which time he was represented by counsel; he waived the reading of the indictment and pleaded "not guilty" to the charges alleged in the indictment.
Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the trial which commenced on April 19, 1938 and concluded on April 29, 1938 when the jury returned a verdict of "guilty" on all counts of the indictment. Appellant was also represented by counsel when the trial court rendered judgment on May 14, 1938, and pronounced sentence thereon.
Subsequently, appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division, invoking the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States upon the ground that his residence was subjected to an allegedly illegal search and seizure and the materials obtained used in evidence against him, and upon the further ground that the trial judge was allegedly disqualified from hearing the prosecution. The district court denied the petition and on May 14, 1941, the appellant brought the matter to this court which heard the appeal and affirmed the lower court. A lengthy opinion discussing all the points presented was filed on February 11, 1942 and is reported at 125 F.2d 806, certiorari denied 316 U.S. 677, 62 S.Ct. 1106, 86 L.Ed. 1750.
Of all the issues raised by the appellant in this appeal, the only question properly before this court and not previously decided was appellant's contention that he was denied the aid of counsel at the trial, by reason of the fact that the Court ordered him to the witness stand in the absence of his counsel from the courtroom and allowed the United States attorney to question him over his objection. This statement is not supported by the evidence, as is apparent from the following excerpt from the record which shows that appellant resumed the witness stand after a court recess and the following occurred:
This evidence, which appellant admits recites the events which transpired clearly shows that no testimony was taken in the absence of counsel and that the question previously asked and which appellant had refused to answer was read back and answered in the presence of his counsel. Appellant was not prejudiced thereby in any way. He had employed counsel of his own selection, who represented him from February 10, 1938 after arrest and prior to trial to April 19, 1938 when the trial commenced, throughout the trial, and until judgment and sentence on May 14, 1938. It thus appears that he was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings before the trial court.
In the case of Macomber v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 115 F.2d 114, certiorari denied 313 U.S. 558, 61 S.Ct. 833, 85 L.Ed. 1519, it was held that where the trial court's finding in a habeas corpus proceeding that a petitioner had not been deprived of his right to counsel in a criminal prosecution was supported by substantial evidence and was not clearly wrong, it was required to be sustained on appeal.
Appellant also alleges that his constitutional rights were infringed because he was denied assistance of counsel at the time of his arrest, immediately thereafter and when before the United States Commissioner. This cannot give him an immunity from trial, since he was properly arraigned and tried on an indictment by a court which had jurisdiction over his person and the alleged offenses.1 It is well settled that a prisoner will not be discharged on writ of habeas corpus for defects in the original arrest or commitment, where there is sufficient ground for detention such as an indictment returned by a grand jury.2 A writ of habeas corpus is not like an action to recover damages for unlawful arrest or commitment but its object is to ascertain whether a prisoner can lawfully be detained in custody; and if sufficient ground for detention by the Government is shown, he is not to be discharged for defects in the original arrest or commitment.3
For this last contention — that his constitutional rights were invaded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Price v. Johnston
...affirmed on appeal, the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals being devoted to the matters decided by the District Court. Price v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 144 F.2d 260. This Court then denied a petition for certiorari, a petition which presented no issues differing from those raised in the lowe......
-
Jones v. United States
...11 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964). 12 287 U.S. 45, 69, 53 S.Ct. 55, 64, 77 L. Ed. 158 (1932). 13 Price v. Johnston, 144 F.2d 260, 262 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 789, 65 S.Ct. 312, 89 L.Ed. 629 (1944), rehearing denied, 323 U.S. 819, 65 S.Ct. 558, 89 L.Ed. 650 (1945......
-
Jackson v. United States
...U.S.App.D.C. 74, 177 F.2d 22, cert. denied, 338 U.S. 880, 70 S.Ct. 150, 94 L.Ed. 540 (1949); and such is the general rule, Price v. Johnston, 144 F.2d 260 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 789, 65 S.Ct. 312, 89 L. Ed. 629 (1944), rehearing denied, 323 U.S. 819, 65 S.Ct. 558, 89 L.Ed. 650 3 1......
-
Price v. Johnston
...denied 316 U.S. 677, 62 S.Ct. 1106, 86 L.Ed. 1750 and a like result was reached on appeal in the second proceeding, Price v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 144 F.2d 260. No appeal was taken from the denial of the third The instant petition, as originally filed, raised questions concerning the validity o......