United States v. Myers, Misc. No. 2079.
| Decision Date | 09 July 1959 |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. 2079. |
| Citation | 174 F. Supp. 818 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Karl E. MORRISON, Petitioner, v. David N. MYERS, Warden/Supt. et al., State Penitentiary, Graterford, Pa., Co-respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Karl E. Morrison, pro se.
This case is before the Court on petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by relator Karl E. Morrison on June 4, 1959. In his petition relator alleges that he was illegally and unlawfully held a prisoner in the State Penitentiary at Graterford, Pennsylvania; that he was held by virtue of transfer from the Western State Penitentiary at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where he was held by virtue of an illegal and unlawful commitment issued by the Court of Quarter Sessions of Erie County, Pennsylvania, at Nos. 96, 97, 98 and 99, September Term 1954, Com. of Pennsylvania v. Morrison, 39 Erie County Law Journal 31, said commitment being issued pursuant to an illegal and unlawful judgment of conviction after trial by jury, with verdict of guilty, in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Erie County, Pennsylvania; that said illegal and unlawful commitment, sentence, judgment of conviction, imprisonment, and transfer is a deprivation and denial of due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to prison by the state courts in September 1954 on a charge of sodomy. This conviction was affirmed upon appeal. Commonwealth v. Morrison, 1955, 180 Pa.Super. 121, 118 A.2d 258, certiorari denied 1956, 352 U.S. 823, 77 S.Ct. 31, 1 L.Ed.2d 47. He was subsequently convicted for hindering a witness in connection with the trial on the charge of sodomy. This also was affirmed upon appeal. Commonwealth v. Morrison, 1955, 180 Pa.Super. 133, 118 A.2d 263, certiorari denied 1956, 352 U.S. 823, 77 S.Ct. 31, 1 L.Ed.2d 47. However, it is obvious from the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus that the allegations thereof relate to the former conviction. Among other things, petitioner alleges that his mail has been obstructed in violation of Federal law, and that he has been mistreated while in prison. It would appear that habeas corpus is not the proper proceeding to investigate these complaints since they do not directly affect the legality of the detention.1
Petitioner's remaining allegations are more appropriate. He contends, in essence, that he was denied a fair trial by virtue of the knowing use of perjured testimony, bribery and coercion of witnesses, and inflammatory newspaper accounts that appeared during the trial. The petition also contains an intimation that a judge conspired with the prosecution to secure a conviction.
In addition to the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Long v. Parker
...14 L.Ed.2d 277 (1965); United States v. Kniess, 251 F.2d 669 (7 Cir. 1958); Williams v. Steele, supra note 6; United States ex rel. Morrison v. Myers, 174 F.Supp. 818 (E.D.Pa.1959). But see Coffin v. Reichard, 143 F.2d 443, 155 A.L.R. 143 (6 Cir. 8 28 U.S.C. § 1361. "The district courts sha......
-
United States v. Fay
...Rundle, 226 F.Supp. 579, 583 (E.D.Pa. 1964). 5 See Arsenault v. Gavin, 248 F.2d 777, 779 (1st Cir. 1957); United States ex rel. Morrison v. Myers, 174 F.Supp. 818, 819 (E.D.Pa. 1959). 6 The petitioner sought to have the Court of Appeals' remittitur amended to read: "Appellant contended that......
-
United States v. Wallack
...264, 267 (7th Cir. 1957); United States ex rel. Berkery v. Rundle, 226 F.Supp. 579, 583 (E.D.Pa.1964); United States ex rel. Morrison v. Myers, 174 F.Supp. 818, 819 (E.D.Pa.1959). See United States ex rel. Cuomo v. Fay, 257 F.2d 438, 441 (2d Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 935, 79 S.Ct. ......
-
United States v. Fay
...222, 226 (S.D. N.Y.1960); United States ex rel. Murdaugh v. Murphy, 183 F.Supp. 440 (N.D. N.Y.1960); United States ex rel. Morrison v. Myers, 174 F.Supp. 818, 819-820 (E.D.Pa.1959). "It has long been settled that the federal courts will not consider on habeas corpus claims which have not be......