State of Texas v. Whittington, 25145.
| Decision Date | 29 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 25145.,25145. |
| Citation | 391 F.2d 905 |
| Parties | The STATE OF TEXAS et al., Appellants, v. James C. WHITTINGTON, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Robert E. Owen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Crawford C. Martin, Atty. Gen. of Texas, George M. Cowden, First Asst, Atty. Gen., A. J. Carubbi, Jr., Staff Legal Asst. Atty. Gen., R. L. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Howard M. Fender, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for appellants.
Deane C. Watson, Lumpkin, Watson & Smith, Amarillo, Tex., for appellee.
Before COLEMAN, AINSWORTH and DYER, Circuit Judges.
This appeal seeks review of a judgment of the District Court granting a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to Whittington, a state prisoner under sentence for armed robbery. Convinced that the writ was improvidently granted, we reverse.
At the time of Whittington's arrest his bond was set at $10,000. Although he was unable to post bond and therefore remained in jail, no motion to reduce bail was filed before trial. With funds made available by his mother, Whittington retained counsel and informed him that two Mississippi residents could identify Whittington as the man who was staying at their motel in Biloxi, Mississippi, at the time it was alleged that he committed the robbery in Amarillo, Texas. The attorney attempted to locate these witnesses prior to trial but was unsuccessful. Whittington's brother, another alibi witness who resided in Arkansas, could not be present on the original date set for trial. A motion for continuance because of the brother's inability to attend the trial was made and granted, but the two Mississippi witnesses were not mentioned in the motion nor was a continuance sought to enable a further search for them. The trial was reset; Whittington pled not guilty; his attorney announced ready for trial; and the case was tried to a jury which found him guilty. Six days after the trial the Mississippi witnesses were located and by affidavit identified Whittington as a guest at their motel on the night in question.1
The District Court concluded that the setting of bail in an amount which Whittington could not supply denied him the opportunity to seek out the witnesses. The court also found that out of state witnesses could not be compelled to come into Texas and testify until a tender of their expenses was made and that Texas had no provision requiring the state to pay these sums for a defendant. For these reasons the court held that Whittington was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bramlett v. Peterson
...Whittington v. Gaither, 272 F.Supp. 507, 512 (N.D.Tex.1967) (standard of indigency), rev'd on other grounds, sub nom. Texas v. Whittington, 391 F.2d 905 (5th Cir. 1968); Cuevas v. Wilson, 264 F.Supp. 65, 72 (N.D. Cal.1966); In re Trevithick, 260 F. Supp. 852, 854 (D.S.D.1966); Sapio v. Stat......
-
Eaglin v. Louisiana
...and obtain representation of his choice was hindered by the imposition of an excessive pretrial bail. Cf. State of Texas v. Whittington, 391 F.2d 905, 907 (5th Cir. 1968) ("It has consistently been held thateven in situations where a proper motion for reduction of bail was presented to the ......
-
People v. Bryan
...was entitled to an investigator at the expense of the state to interview such witnesses. This case was reversed in Texas v. Whittington, 5 Cir., 391 F.2d 905, 907, wherein the circuit court held that 'Whittington was denied nothing by Texas law or procedure,' thus, impliedly holding that th......
-
Simon v. Woodson, 71-2789 Summary Calendar.
...Sheriff of Dallas County, 445 F.2d 851 (5th Cir. 1971). 9 Contrary to the State's contention here, we do not consider Texas v. Whittington, 391 F.2d 905 (5th Cir. 1968) to foreclose federal inquiry even were an Eighth Amendment violation established. That case gave no consideration whatever......