Fowler v. Gill

D.C. Circuit

Fowler v. Gill

156 F.2d 565, 81 U.S. App. D.C. 167, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2608

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 20, 1946

DocketNo. 9186

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 156 F.2d 565 (Fowler v. Gill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fowler v. Gill, 156 F.2d 565, 81 U.S. App. D.C. 167, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2608 (D.C. Cir. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court denying a petition for habeas corpus. The appellant is now serving a sentence imposed following his conviction of forgery and uttering. He sought a writ of habeas corpus on the theory that the District Court lost jurisdiction during the trial through what he alleges was a denial of his constitutional rights. It is contended that agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation obtained the evidence that resulted in his conviction by an unlawful search and seizure. It appears, however, that appellant’s counsel, before the trial, filed a motion to suppress the evidence of which he now complains and that, after hearing, the- motion was denied. The petition for habeas corpus, in effect, seeks a reversal of that ruling, which is equivalent to attempting to substitute the writ for an appeal. That is not its function.¹

Use of the writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that during his trial the defendant’s constitutional rights were so far denied that the court lost jurisdiction, is not justifiable unless the circumstances are so exceptional that it is the only means of preserving those rights.² Unquestionably the District Court had jurisdiction in the first instance to try the petitioner, and-we observe no exceptional circumstances which caused it to lose that jurisdiction during the progress of the trial. Consequently, as the District Court originally had, and did not lose, jurisdiction, the judgment under which the petitioner is detained is “impervious to his collateral attack.”³

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court denying a petition for habeas corpus. The appellant is now serving a sentence imposed following his conviction of forgery and uttering. He sought a writ of habeas corpus on the theory that the District Court lost jurisdiction during the trial through what he alleges was a denial of his constitutional rights. It is contended that agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation obtained the evidence that resulted in his conviction by an unlawful search and seizure. It appears, however, that appellant’s counsel, before the trial, filed a motion to suppress the evidence of which he now complains and that, after hearing, the- motion was denied. The petition for habeas corpus, in effect, seeks a reversal of that ruling, which is equivalent to attempting to substitute the writ for an appeal. That is not its function.¹

Use of the writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that during his trial the defendant’s constitutional rights were so far denied that the court lost jurisdiction, is not justifiable unless the circumstances are so exceptional that it is the only means of preserving those rights.² Unquestionably the District Court had jurisdiction in the first instance to try the petitioner, and-we observe no exceptional circumstances which caused it to lose that jurisdiction during the progress of the trial. Consequently, as the District Court originally had, and did not lose, jurisdiction, the judgment under which the petitioner is detained is “impervious to his collateral attack.”³

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 F.2d 565, 81 U.S. App. D.C. 167, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fowler-v-gill-cadc-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack