United States v. Humphrey, 9786.

• Decision Date: 13 April 1949
• Docket Number: No. 9786.,9786.
• Citation: 174 F.2d 741
• Parties: UNITED STATES ex rel. KRANZ v. HUMPHREY, Warden.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

174 F.2d 741 (1949)

UNITED STATES ex rel. KRANZ v. HUMPHREY, Warden.

No. 9786.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Submitted January 21, 1949.

Decided April 13, 1949.

Writ of Certiorari Denied June 20, 1949.

Appellant pro se.

Arthur A. Maguire, U. S. Attorney, Scranton, Pa., Charles W. Kalp, Asst. U. S. Attorney, Lewisburg, Pa., for appellee.

Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN, and O'CONNELL, Circuit Judges.

Writ of Certiorari Denied June 20, 1949. See 69 S.Ct. 1508.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for habeas corpus.¹

Appellant with six other persons was indicted October 5, 1943 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917² by unlawfully disclosing information affecting the National Defense. He was tried and convicted of this and on January 5, 1944 was sentenced to the custody of the Attorney General for eight years. He is at present confined in the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.

Appellant's main contentions on this appeal are: (1) That a statement obtained from him by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents was so obtained under conditions amounting to duress; and (2) that the crime for which he was indicted was not within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Appellant's statement was before the Grand Jury. It was not admitted into evidence at the criminal trial. The lower court found that the statement was voluntary and there is ample evidence to support such finding. But even if it had been involuntary, the question cannot be raised for the first time in a habeas corpus proceeding. Chadwick v. United States, 5 Cir., 170 F.2d 986; Dorsey v. Gill, 80 U.S.App. D.C., 148 F.2d 857, 876; Kaizo v. Henry, 211 U.S. 146, 29 S.Ct. 41, 53 L.Ed. 125; Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U.S. 442, 31 S.Ct. 44, 54 L.Ed. 1101, 21 Ann. Cas. 849.

The jurisdictional point consists principally of a vague complaint concerning the conduct of the conspiracy trial, particularly regarding the credibility of two of the witnesses who testified and inferences sought to be drawn from the fact that another named person did not testify. That appellant's participation in the conspiracy may have been outside the District of New Jersey is of no consequence. Six of the overt acts set forth in the indictment were clearly alleged to have taken place in New Jersey and appellant's own brief though disputing their importance shows that there was evidence in the case of such acts or some of them. There are loose references to various other matters. These have been examined and found lacking in any substance. For example, a remark of the trial court is characterized as prejudicial. This latter with other...