Booker T. Hillery, Jr. v. Reginald Pulley, Warden

733 F.2d 644, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 22528
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 14, 1984
Docket83-2017
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 733 F.2d 644 (Booker T. Hillery, Jr. v. Reginald Pulley, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Booker T. Hillery, Jr. v. Reginald Pulley, Warden, 733 F.2d 644, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 22528 (9th Cir. 1984).

Opinions

In this matter, petitioner Booker T. Hillery, Jr., successfully challenged the constitutionality of his 1962 Kings County Superior Court judgment of conviction and sentence for the stabbing murder of a fifteen-year-old girl, in violation of California Penal Code § 187, by applying for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court. The District Court granted the writ upon concluding that petitioner’s conviction resulted from a denial of equal protection because black persons had been systematically excluded from selection to the Kings County grand jury for the years preceding his 1962 indictment.

We affirm upon the basis and for the reasons set forth in the excellent and extensive District Court opinion granting the application. Hillery v. Pulley, 563 F.Supp. 1228 (E.D.Cal.1983). See also Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F.Supp. 1189 (E.D.Cal.1982) (denial of government’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust); Hillery v. Sumner, 496 F.Supp. 632 (E.D.Cal.1980) (denial of government’s motion to dismiss for prejudicial delay).

The judgment of the United States District Court granting petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus is AFFIRMED.

The matter is REMANDED to the District Court for issuance of the writ and other appropriate order.

The state may seek to recharge and try petitioner again by the procedure which conforms to constitutional requirements.

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

Related

(HC) Torres v. Montgomery
E.D. California, 2020
United States v. Rodriguez
924 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (C.D. California, 2013)
Wishman v. Wiley
83 F.3d 430 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Loving
41 M.J. 213 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 1994)
Santiago v. Miles
774 F. Supp. 775 (W.D. New York, 1991)
Ainsworth v. Vasquez
759 F. Supp. 1467 (E.D. California, 1991)
Howard Sampson v. Aileene Love, Warden
782 F.2d 53 (Sixth Circuit, 1986)
Vasquez v. Hillery
474 U.S. 254 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Carlisle v. Housewright
619 F. Supp. 1370 (D. Nevada, 1985)
United States v. John M. Murphy
768 F.2d 1518 (Seventh Circuit, 1985)
Booker T. Hillery, Jr. v. Reginald Pulley, Warden
733 F.2d 644 (Ninth Circuit, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
733 F.2d 644, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 22528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/booker-t-hillery-jr-v-reginald-pulley-warden-ca9-1984.