Bigrow v. Hiatt

Third Circuit

Bigrow v. Hiatt

168 F.2d 992, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2166

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJuly 2, 1948

DocketNo. 9563

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 168 F.2d 992 (Bigrow v. Hiatt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bigrow v. Hiatt, 168 F.2d 992, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2166 (3d Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A careful examination of the record in this case convinces us that the appellant, Bigrow, now a military prisoner in the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, received a fair trial by court-martial for unlawfully killing a brother soldier by shooting him in the neck with a sub-machine gun, a violation of Article of War 93, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1565, and for misbehavior before the enemy in that he was drunk on duty in the presence of the enemy, a violation of Article of War 75, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1547. The offenses occurred in the vicinity of Vannes, France, on or about August 9, 1944. In nowise was the appellant denied due process of law. See also the opinion of the court below, D.C., 70 F.Supp. 826. The order of the court below will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

A careful examination of the record in this case convinces us that the appellant, Bigrow, now a military prisoner in the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, received a fair trial by court-martial for unlawfully killing a brother soldier by shooting him in the neck with a sub-machine gun, a violation of Article of War 93, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1565, and for misbehavior before the enemy in that he was drunk on duty in the presence of the enemy, a violation of Article of War 75, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1547. The offenses occurred in the vicinity of Vannes, France, on or about August 9, 1944. In nowise was the appellant denied due process of law. See also the opinion of the court below, D.C., 70 F.Supp. 826. The order of the court below will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 F.2d 992, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bigrow-v-hiatt-ca3-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack