Stephenson v. Daly
| Decision Date | 07 September 1927 |
| Citation | 21 F.2d 625 |
| Parties | STEPHENSON v. DALY, Warden. |
| Court | New York District Court |
Wm. V. Rooker, of Indianapolis, Ind., for applicant.
Arthur L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Applicant, David C. Stephenson, brings this action for habeas corpus, alleging that he is wrongfully and unlawfully restrained and deprived of his liberty by defendant. Defendant answers that he is warden of the Indiana State Prison, and as such warden has the custody of the petitioner as a prisoner in said prison by authority of a commitment issued by the clerk of the Hamilton circuit court, one of the circuit courts of the state of Indiana having general criminal jurisdiction.
Petitioner, with two other defendants, was indicted for murder in the criminal court of Marion county, Ind. Upon his application, a change of venue was granted to the Hamilton circuit court, and the clerk of the Marion Criminal court made a full, true, and complete transcript of the proceedings and orders of said court in said cause and sealed up the same with the original indictment and papers, and delivered the same to the sheriff of Marion county, who thereupon deposited the same in the office of the clerk of the Hamilton circuit court, who docketed the same in said court, and thereafter said cause stood for trial in said court.
Petitioner was tried by a jury, and found guilty, and the Hamilton circuit court pronounced sentence on said verdict and rendered judgment of imprisonment for life.
Petitioner at no time challenged or questioned the jurisdiction of the Hamilton circuit court until after final judgment and commitment, when he raised a question concerning the jurisdiction of said court. Whereupon it was discovered that the clerk of the criminal court of Marion county had failed to affix his signature to the transcript filed with the original papers with the clerk of Hamilton county.
Petitioner voluntarily entered a general appearance in said Hamilton circuit court, and filed a petition to be admitted to bail. He also filed a petition for an order for inspection of a dying declaration. He filed various other petitions, for a separate trial, for an immediate trial, to withdraw his request for an immediate trial, for change of venue from the judge of the Hamilton circuit court, and made various other motions therein.
After his conviction and sentence, he caused to be perfected an appeal to the Supreme Court of Indiana assigning as one of the errors that the Hamilton circuit court did not have jurisdiction over his person or over the subject-matter of said cause on account of the omission of the signature of the clerk to the certificate in said transcript, which appeal is now pending in the Supreme Court of Indiana.
Later applicant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the La Porte superior court, assigning the omission of the clerk's signature to the transcript as a reason why he claimed the judgment of the Hamilton circuit court is void and his imprisonment illegal. The La Porte superior court heard said cause and pronounced final judgment denying the writ of habeas corpus, and petitioner then perfected his appeal to the Supreme Court of Indiana from such judgment. Said cause is now pending in the Supreme Court, has been fully briefed by both sides, and has been orally argued, and the Supreme court is now considering the question in said appeal whether petitioner is being deprived of his liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Constitution of the United States.
The first count of the indictment under which defendant was found guilty, charges that applicant, together with Earl Gentry and Earl Klinck in the county of Marion and in the state of Indiana, unlawfully, feloniously, and with premeditated malice did kill and murder Madge Oberholtzer in the following manner, to wit: That said three defendants wrongfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, by force of arms and by duress and by putting her in fear and against her will, took possession of the body and person of Madge Oberholtzer and by force of arms and duress and putting her in fear and against her will, took her from the city of Indianapolis to the city of Hammond, Ind., all the time restraining her of her liberty in the drawing room of a passenger train, and that, while so holding possession of the body...
To continue reading
Request your trial