Duckett v. Warden of the Maryland House of Correction

192 A.2d 511, 232 Md. 618, 1963 Md. LEXIS 742
Court of Appeals of Maryland·Decided July 1, 1963·No. App. No. 8·Published

Opinion

PER Curiam.

Petitioner asks leave to appeal from Judge Gray’s ruling on his request for relief under the P.C.P.A. This is the second chapter in his application for such relief; see Duckett v. Warden, 230 Md. 621, 185 A. 2d 712, for the first.

His only contention is that perjured testimony was knowingly used by the State’s Attorney at his original trial. Judge Gray, after a full hearing, found “no sufficient showing of perjury at the original trial,” and not a “scintilla of evidence to show that the State’s Attorney was a party to the presentation of perjured testimony, even had there been any.” His findings were, we think, amply warranted by the evidence.

Application denied.

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

Duckett v. Warden of the Maryland House of Correction, 192 A.2d 511, 232 Md. 618, 1963 Md. LEXIS 742 (Md. 1963).

192 A.2d 511 (Duckett v. Warden of the Maryland House of Correction) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Duckett v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction
185 A.2d 712 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1962)