Exkano v. Hiatt

Fifth Circuit

Exkano v. Hiatt

170 F.2d 93, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2562

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 18, 1948

DocketNo. 12519

StatusPublished

This text of 170 F.2d 93 (Exkano v. Hiatt) 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

Exkano v. Hiatt, 170 F.2d 93, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2562 (5th Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

His petition for habeas corpus for release from imprisonment under sentence of a general court-martial having, after hearing, been denied, appellant, a military prisoner, is here seeking a reversal of the judgment.

The grounds stated in his petition for discharge were: that his defense counsel (1) was incompetent and (2) had entered into a conspiracy with the trial judge advocate. In his testimony below he added a third ground, an attack on the pretrial investigation as inadequate, Articles of War, art. 70, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1542. On the first ground, the incompetency of his counsel, and the third, the inadequacy of the pretrial investigation, petitioner gave testimony as to claimed omissions on the part of his counsel to properly prepare and present his defense and claimed inadequacies in the investigation. On the second ground, that his counsel was in a conspiracy, no evidence was offered.

The court, after a consideration of the evidence in the light of the court-martial record, concluding that no ground for the writ was shown, denied it.

Assuming, but not deciding, that a writ of habeas corpus may be obtained on the ground that defense counsel was incompetent¹ or on that of inadequacy of the pretrial investigation, it is perfectly clear that neither of these grounds was made out and that the judge’s finding, that the evidence in this case furnished no basis for the writ finds full support in the record. The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

His petition for habeas corpus for release from imprisonment under sentence of a general court-martial having, after hearing, been denied, appellant, a military prisoner, is here seeking a reversal of the judgment.

The grounds stated in his petition for discharge were: that his defense counsel (1) was incompetent and (2) had entered into a conspiracy with the trial judge advocate. In his testimony below he added a third ground, an attack on the pretrial investigation as inadequate, Articles of War, art. 70, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1542. On the first ground, the incompetency of his counsel, and the third, the inadequacy of the pretrial investigation, petitioner gave testimony as to claimed omissions on the part of his counsel to properly prepare and present his defense and claimed inadequacies in the investigation. On the second ground, that his counsel was in a conspiracy, no evidence was offered.

The court, after a consideration of the evidence in the light of the court-martial record, concluding that no ground for the writ was shown, denied it.

Assuming, but not deciding, that a writ of habeas corpus may be obtained on the ground that defense counsel was incompetent¹ or on that of inadequacy of the pretrial investigation, it is perfectly clear that neither of these grounds was made out and that the judge’s finding, that the evidence in this case furnished no basis for the writ finds full support in the record. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 F.2d 93, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/exkano-v-hiatt-ca5-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack