United States v. Russell
| Decision Date | 25 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 656.,656. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Joseph F. KUHN, Petitioner, v. H. E. RUSSELL, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Joseph F. Kuhn, pro se.
Richard A. Devlin, Asst. Dist. Atty., Montgomery County, Norristown, Pa., for respondent.
Petitioner, Joseph F. Kuhn, filed three habeas corpus proceedings with reference to sentences imposed in Bucks County (No. 659) D.C., 252 F.Supp. 70, Montgomery County (No. 656), and Philadelphia County (No. 671). He then submitted a fourth petition as to the Montgomery County sentence which was incorporated as an amendment to the proceedings in Habeas Corpus No. 656. Here, a Rule to Show Cause issued, a Response and Traverse have been filed, and a hearing held at which petitioner was present and testified.
The Court had the benefit of the transcript of the court proceedings and habeas corpus proceedings in Montgomery County.
Petitioner has intermingled his several petitions which makes it difficult to arrive at a correct understanding of the problems as they relate to each sentence.
As I understand the instant petition, petitioner contends that at the time of his arrest he was held and questioned for about four days; that although requested, he was refused counsel; that while under interrogation, he was shown pictures of his wife in the nude or semi-nude taken by another man; that while he was without counsel and in this distraught state of mind, the police took from him a verbal confession and this confession was placed before the jury.
When arraigned, he entered a plea of not guilty to three indictments. At his request, he was assigned an attorney from the Public Defenders Association to represent him at his trial. He met his attorney a few minutes before the cases were called. At his trial, the police officer testified at considerable length relative to the verbal confession he had made. No objection thereto was made by his attorney.
This petitioner is no novice in the criminal courts. Observing him on two occasions on the witness stand and reading his testimony in the Montgomery County trial and in the State habeas corpus proceeding, I am absolutely convinced that he was at all times fully aware of his rights. Unfortunately the record does not help much. It is not denied that he was interrogated for several days, that he requested an attorney which...
To continue reading
Request your trial