United States ex rel. Cunningham v. Maroney, 17191.
| Decision Date | 05 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 17191.,17191. |
| Citation | 397 F.2d 724 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America ex rel. John CUNNINGHAM, Appellant, v. James F. MARONEY, Warden, State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
John Cunningham, pro se.
Robert W. Duggan, Dist. Atty., Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Charles B. Watkins, Asst. Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, STALEY and SEITZ, Circuit Judges
We accept this proceeding of appellant as his appeal from the denial of his application for habeas corpus in the District Court.
The cause arises out of a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania conviction of appellant on June 28, 1963 for second degree murder. The conviction facts indicate that appellant drove his brother and William Lowery to a secluded spot. By prearrangement the later victim, Brodie Lipscomb, followed them in his car. Roosevelt Cunningham, appellant's brother, left the car in which he had been riding, shots were then heard and Lipscomb died as a result of those shots. The evidence warranted belief that appellant knew why Lipscomb had been enticed to the said spot and that his brother intended to kill Lipscomb. Appellant owned the weapon so used and cartridges for it were found hidden in the trunk of the automobile appellant drove. Various acts identified with covering up the killing were participated in by appellant, including the hiding of two guns and testimony that he and his brother asked Joseph Gilliott to be an alibi witness.
Appellant, as he did in the state courts, urges that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain his conviction and that the search of the automobile he drove was illegal. We find no federal question in appellant's contention of insufficient proof. Though not decisional here it is our view that there was ample evidence to go to the jury and to justify that tribunal's verdict.
The second point raised regarding the search of the car is without merit. Appellant's claim is that the warrant for the search was invalid because the justice of the peace who issued it was a county detective. There is not even an allegation of lack of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant nor is there any charge of prejudice in connection therewith. As Chief Justice Bell for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in passing on appellant's direct state appeal, said for the Court with respect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Douglas v. Hendricks
...the record is completely devoid of evidentiary support in violation of Petitioner's due process. See United States ex. rel. Cunningham v. Maroney, 397 F.2d 724, 725 (3d Cir. 1968), cert denied, 393 U.S. 1045 (1969). Only where no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond......
-
Delph v. Slayton
...While the sufficiency of the evidence by itself does not raise a federal question under § 2254(a), United States ex rel. Cunningham v. Maroney, 397 F.2d 724 (3rd Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1045, 89 S.Ct. 663, 21 L. Ed.2d 594 (1969), suffice it to say that a reading of both trials rev......
-
Douglas v. Hendricks, Civ. No. 99-5642(WHW).
...the record is completely devoid of evidentiary support in violation of Petitioner's due process. See United States ex rel. Cunningham v. Maroney, 397 F.2d 724, 725 (3d Cir.1968), cert denied, 393 U.S. 1045, 89 S.Ct. 663, 21 L.Ed.2d 594 (1969). Only where no rational trier of fact could have......
-
Gambino v. Warden of N.J. State Prison
...record is completely devoid of evidentiary support, in violation of the criminal defendant's due process rights. See Cunningham v. Maroney, 397 F.2d 724, 725 (3d Cir. 1968). Thus, a claim that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence raises a due process concern only where,......