United States v. Myers, Misc. No. M-2642.
| Decision Date | 27 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. M-2642. |
| Citation | 226 F. Supp. 343 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Morrice JONES v. David N. MYERS, Superintendent State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Morrice Jones, in pro. per.
Morrice Jones petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus alleging a denial of due process based upon three grounds.
First: Petitioner claims that during his trial in Philadelphia in August 1961, certain "perjured testimony" was admitted in evidence. In fact, from the petition it is clear that the testimony was hearsay. If it was error to admit this testimony, the error was harmless and, moreover, is mere trial error under Pennsylvania law, and was so treated by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Commonwealth ex rel. Jones v. Myers, 201 Pa.Super. 437, 193 A.2d 629 (1963); allocatur refused by Supreme Court on November 7, 1963. "Federal courts may not promulgate rules of evidence for state courts under the guise of preserving due process". United States ex rel. Saunders v. Myers, 276 F.2d 790 (3d Cir. 1960). Since the facts bearing on the "perjured testimony" were fully and fairly determined, no evidentiary hearing is required in this Court to determine the same. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963).
Second: Petitioner alleges that he was denied his right to confront a witness. This witness was the victim of the aggravated robbery of which relator was convicted. At trial counsel for petitioner objected when the district attorney asked for a recess in order to produce the witness. Petitioner was represented by counsel and was himself present in court. This was the time for him to insist that the witness be produced, not now, more than two years later. Assuming that petitioner had a right to confrontation under the circumstances, and further, that this right is of the highest constitutional order, neither of which is here decided, clearly petitioner waived his right with full knowledge of all of the facts and circumstances. There is no question that one can effectively waive a constitutional right foreclosing any further complaint with regard thereto. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed. 2d 837 (1963).
Third: Petitioner contends that counsel for the Commonwealth and his defense attorney conspired to deprive him of a fair trial and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Gray
...v. People of Puerto Rico, 210 F.2d 789 (1st Cir.1954); Fukunaga v. Territory of Hawaii, 33 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1929); United States v. Meyers, 226 F.Supp. 343 (E.D. Pa.1964).7 Here, in the presence of appellee and without any objection on his part, his counsel stipulated that the matter be h......
-
State v. Manning
...to be secure in person and effects against unreasonable rearch and seizure is a right which may be waived. United States ex rel. Jones v. Myers, D.C., 226 F.Supp. 343 (1964). This, if a person knowingly waives his constitutional rights and consents to having his property searched by an offi......
-
State v. Kinnell
...of Puerto Rico, 210 F.2d 789 (1st Cir. 1954); Fukunaga v. Territory of Hawaii, 33 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1929); United States (ex rel. Jones) v. Myers, 226 F.Supp. 343 (E.D.Pa.1964). Here, in the presence of appellee and without any objection on his part, his counsel stipulated that the matter ......
-
United States v. Myers
...ex rel. Vaughn v. La Valle, 318 F.2d 499 (C.A. 2, 1963); Whitley v. Steiner, 293 F.2d 895 (C.A. 4, 1961); United States ex rel. Jones v. Myers, 226 F.Supp. 343 (E.D.Pa., 1964). In a case such as this, the petition must set forth the precise nature of the evidence allegedly withheld so that ......