Carl W. Ramsey v. H. J. Cardwell, Warden

Sixth Circuit

Carl W. Ramsey v. H. J. Cardwell, Warden

423 F.2d 715, 26 Ohio Misc. 187, 53 Ohio Op. 2d 249, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10164

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 1970

Docket19508

StatusPublished

This text of 423 F.2d 715 (Carl W. Ramsey v. H. J. Cardwell, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carl W. Ramsey v. H. J. Cardwell, Warden, 423 F.2d 715, 26 Ohio Misc. 187, 53 Ohio Op. 2d 249, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10164 (6th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner appeals from an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He was arrested on or about July 6, 1965, on the charge of murdering his common law wife, and was convicted by a three-judge Ohio court. The three-judge court recommended mercy and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed by the Ohio Court of Appeals. State v. Ramsey, 9 Ohio App.2d 345, 224 N.E.2d 914. An appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio was dismissed by that court on the ground that no substantial constitutional question was involved.

The principal question on appeal is whether the confession of petitioner was obtained in conformity with the requirements of Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. We agree with the District Court and the *716 Ohio Court of Appeals that petitioner was advised that he might be charged with murder, that anything he might say could be used against him at the trial, and that he had the right to remain silent. He was given the opportunity to consult with his attorney and availed himself of this right before he was questioned concerning the death of his wife. We hold that there was compliance with the standards of Escobedo.

All the other contentions made by petitioner have been considered and are found to be without merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner appeals from an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He was arrested on or about July 6, 1965, on the charge of murdering his common law wife, and was convicted by a three-judge Ohio court. The three-judge court recommended mercy and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed by the Ohio Court of Appeals. State v. Ramsey, 9 Ohio App.2d 345, 224 N.E.2d 914. An appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio was dismissed by that court on the ground that no substantial constitutional question was involved.

The principal question on appeal is whether the confession of petitioner was obtained in conformity with the requirements of Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. We agree with the District Court and the *716 Ohio Court of Appeals that petitioner was advised that he might be charged with murder, that anything he might say could be used against him at the trial, and that he had the right to remain silent. He was given the opportunity to consult with his attorney and availed himself of this right before he was questioned concerning the death of his wife. We hold that there was compliance with the standards of Escobedo.

All the other contentions made by petitioner have been considered and are found to be without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

423 F.2d 715, 26 Ohio Misc. 187, 53 Ohio Op. 2d 249, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carl-w-ramsey-v-h-j-cardwell-warden-ca6-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack