Elliott Laverne Prince v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

Elliott Laverne Prince v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

467 F.2d 484, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7144

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 17, 1972

Docket72-2352

StatusPublished

This text of 467 F.2d 484 (Elliott Laverne Prince v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elliott Laverne Prince v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 467 F.2d 484, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7144 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed. See Local Rule 21. 1 In his habeas petition appellant alleged: (1) illegal arrest; (2) illegal search and seizure; (3) a Negro woman was excluded by defense counsel, leaving an all white jury; (4) his hat was shown to the victim before the trial, who identified it as the one worn by his assailant; (5) evidence of a prior conviction was brought out by his attorney; (6) the prosecuting attorney attempted to inflame the jury when, on cross-examination, he asked questions inferring that appellant hated white people; (7) a policeman was allowed to state that he believed appellant had committed the offense ; (8) counsel was ineffective.

1

. See NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F.2d 966.

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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed. See Local Rule 21. 1 In his habeas petition appellant alleged: (1) illegal arrest; (2) illegal search and seizure; (3) a Negro woman was excluded by defense counsel, leaving an all white jury; (4) his hat was shown to the victim before the trial, who identified it as the one worn by his assailant; (5) evidence of a prior conviction was brought out by his attorney; (6) the prosecuting attorney attempted to inflame the jury when, on cross-examination, he asked questions inferring that appellant hated white people; (7) a policeman was allowed to state that he believed appellant had committed the offense ; (8) counsel was ineffective.

1

. See NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F.2d 966.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

467 F.2d 484, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-laverne-prince-v-dr-george-j-beto-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack