Edwin E. Lotz v. Marion J. Koloski, Warden, Ohio Penitentiary

Sixth Circuit

Edwin E. Lotz v. Marion J. Koloski, Warden, Ohio Penitentiary

460 F.2d 1284, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9378

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMay 24, 1972

Docket71-1970

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 460 F.2d 1284 (Edwin E. Lotz v. Marion J. Koloski, Warden, Ohio Penitentiary) 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

Edwin E. Lotz v. Marion J. Koloski, Warden, Ohio Penitentiary, 460 F.2d 1284, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9378 (6th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a denial of appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus following his conviction in 1953 on a charge of burglary in the nighttime. The issues argued to us appear to have been presented before, either in a state court habeas corpus hearing or a habeas corpus hearing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, which this court reviewed in 1961. Lotz v. Sacks, 292 F.2d 657 (6th Cir. 1961). The District Judge in the instant case conducted no evidentiary hearing but decided the issues on the prior records.

Two o,f the three principal issues argued on appeal to us were decided adversely to defendant in this court’s opinion in 1961 cited above. These two issues pertain to appellant’s claim that he had been served with another indictment in front of the jury in this case, and that in his original state court trial he was represented by incompetent counsel. The third material issue represents appellant’s argument that his due process rights were violated by pretrial publicity. The District Judge found, as do we, that no facts approaching the interference with *1285 judicial processes comparable to those in the Sheppard case are presented in this appeal. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966).

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a denial of appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus following his conviction in 1953 on a charge of burglary in the nighttime. The issues argued to us appear to have been presented before, either in a state court habeas corpus hearing or a habeas corpus hearing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, which this court reviewed in 1961. Lotz v. Sacks, 292 F.2d 657 (6th Cir. 1961). The District Judge in the instant case conducted no evidentiary hearing but decided the issues on the prior records.

Two o,f the three principal issues argued on appeal to us were decided adversely to defendant in this court’s opinion in 1961 cited above. These two issues pertain to appellant’s claim that he had been served with another indictment in front of the jury in this case, and that in his original state court trial he was represented by incompetent counsel. The third material issue represents appellant’s argument that his due process rights were violated by pretrial publicity. The District Judge found, as do we, that no facts approaching the interference with *1285 judicial processes comparable to those in the Sheppard case are presented in this appeal. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966).

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

460 F.2d 1284, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwin-e-lotz-v-marion-j-koloski-warden-ohio-penitentiary-ca6-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack