Alex S. Evans v. A. L. Dutton, Warden, Georgia State Prison, Reidsville, Georgia

Fifth Circuit

Alex S. Evans v. A. L. Dutton, Warden, Georgia State Prison, Reidsville, Georgia

441 F.2d 657, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10346

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 1971

Docket25348

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 441 F.2d 657 (Alex S. Evans v. A. L. Dutton, Warden, Georgia State Prison, Reidsville, Georgia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alex S. Evans v. A. L. Dutton, Warden, Georgia State Prison, Reidsville, Georgia, 441 F.2d 657, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10346 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In the decision of the Supreme Court, Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 91 S.Ct. 210, 27 L.Ed.2d 213, reversing the judgment of this court in Evans v. Dutton, 400 F.2d 826 (5th Cir. 1968), the cause was remanded to this court for consideration of other issues presented in this habeas corpus proceeding. The Supreme Court dealt only with the evidentiary and and confrontation issues involved in the case.

On oral argument before the Supreme Court it was conceded that the death penalty imposed could not be carried out, because the jury was qualified under standards violative of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776. 1 See Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 91 S.Ct. 210, 27 L.Ed.2d 213 note 20. Prior to that time this court had already set aside, pursuant to the Witherspoon decision, the death sentence imposed in the companion case involving Vincent Williams, an alleged accomplice of Evans. See Williams v. Dutton, 5 Cir., 400 F.2d 797, 804-805. Accordingly, there has been appropriate disposition of the Witherspoon issue.

We have carefully reviewed all other issues presented to the court and it is our judgment that such issues have been dealt with fully and were properly disposed of in our decision in Williams v. Dutton, 400 F.2d 797 (5th Cir. 1968). We adhere to our decision in that case. 2 *658 See also United States ex rel. Williams v. Dutton, 431 F.2d 79 (5th Cir. 1970).

It is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that this cause be, and the same is hereby remanded to the United States District Court for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court and this opinion.

It is so ordered.

1

. Following remand we requested briefs from the parties. The Attorney General of the State of Georgia, counsel for Dutton, has likewise expressly conceded in this court the applicability of Wither-spoon v. Illinois, supra.

2

. The following appears in the brief of Evans filed after remand:

Those questions, numbered 2 through 8, enumerated on pages 3-5 of our original brief, are still insisted upon, although this Court has already consid *658 ered them in the companion case, Williams v. Dutton, 400 F.2d 797. See also United States ex rel. Williams v. Dutton, 431 F.2d 70.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

In the decision of the Supreme Court, Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 91 S.Ct. 210, 27 L.Ed.2d 213, reversing the judgment of this court in Evans v. Dutton, 400 F.2d 826 (5th Cir. 1968), the cause was remanded to this court for consideration of other issues presented in this habeas corpus proceeding. The Supreme Court dealt only with the evidentiary and and confrontation issues involved in the case.

On oral argument before the Supreme Court it was conceded that the death penalty imposed could not be carried out, because the jury was qualified under standards violative of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776. 1 See Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 91 S.Ct. 210, 27 L.Ed.2d 213 note 20. Prior to that time this court had already set aside, pursuant to the Witherspoon decision, the death sentence imposed in the companion case involving Vincent Williams, an alleged accomplice of Evans. See Williams v. Dutton, 5 Cir., 400 F.2d 797, 804-805. Accordingly, there has been appropriate disposition of the Witherspoon issue.

We have carefully reviewed all other issues presented to the court and it is our judgment that such issues have been dealt with fully and were properly disposed of in our decision in Williams v. Dutton, 400 F.2d 797 (5th Cir. 1968). We adhere to our decision in that case. 2 *658 See also United States ex rel. Williams v. Dutton, 431 F.2d 79 (5th Cir. 1970).

It is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that this cause be, and the same is hereby remanded to the United States District Court for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court and this opinion.

It is so ordered.

1

. Following remand we requested briefs from the parties. The Attorney General of the State of Georgia, counsel for Dutton, has likewise expressly conceded in this court the applicability of Wither-spoon v. Illinois, supra.

2

. The following appears in the brief of Evans filed after remand:

Those questions, numbered 2 through 8, enumerated on pages 3-5 of our original brief, are still insisted upon, although this Court has already consid *658 ered them in the companion case, Williams v. Dutton, 400 F.2d 797. See also United States ex rel. Williams v. Dutton, 431 F.2d 70.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 F.2d 657, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alex-s-evans-v-a-l-dutton-warden-georgia-state-prison-reidsville-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack