Garrison v. United States

154 F.2d 106, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2024
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 6, 1946
Docket11523
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 154 F.2d 106 (Garrison v. United States) 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
Garrison v. United States, 154 F.2d 106, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2024 (5th Cir. 1946).

Opinion

154 F.2d 106 (1946)

GARRISON
v.
UNITED STATES.

No. 11523.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 6, 1946.

*107 Willie Gray Garrison, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant in pro. per.

John D. Hill, U. S. Atty., and Gorman R. Jones, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Birmingham, Ala., for appellee.

Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

A motion was made in the District Court on September 25, 1945, to set aside a sentence entered November 6, 1942, and affirmed in this court, Garrison v. United States, 5 Cir., 135 F.2d 877, on June 25, 1943, and certiorari denied by the Supreme Court, 320 U.S. 751, 64 S. Ct. 55, 88 L.Ed. 446, on October 11, 1943. It was dismissed without a hearing. The motion could have propriety only as one in the nature of a coram nobis. It should have been presented to this court first. Strang v. United States, 5 Cir., 53 F.2d 820; Young v. United States, 5 Cir., 138 F.2d 838. But it is here now, the movant being his own counsel, and we are considering it as though presented here initially. Its grounds, except one, are such as should have been raised by timely motion for new trial or appeal, and have been adequately dealt with on a habeas corpus writ under which they were urged. Garrison v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 149 F.2d 844. The one exception is the ground that two of the material witnesses against movant were forced by threats of certain officers of the United States to commit wilful perjury in testifying as they did. This is asserted to have been a denial of due process which invalidates the trial under Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 55 S.Ct. 340, 79 L.Ed. 791, 98 A.L.R. 406. The charge is belated and seems improbable, but is supported by affidavit of the two witnesses referred to, and was not considered and passed upon at all in the trial. We think in the interest of justice this ground of the motion ought to be enquired into, and to this end the judgment dismissing the motion is set aside, and the matter remanded to the District Court that such enquiry be there made, and such action taken as may be found to be proper.

Remanded.

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

Related

Wilkinson v. United States
774 F. Supp. 1360 (N.D. Georgia, 1991)
United States v. James Vincent Keogh
391 F.2d 138 (Second Circuit, 1968)
Emil Richard Yates v. United States
308 F.2d 737 (Tenth Circuit, 1962)
James Bufford Farnsworth v. United States
232 F.2d 59 (D.C. Circuit, 1956)
Haywood v. United States
127 F. Supp. 485 (S.D. New York, 1954)
United States v. Morgan
346 U.S. 502 (Supreme Court, 1954)
Pierce v. United States
157 F.2d 848 (Fifth Circuit, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
154 F.2d 106, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrison-v-united-states-ca5-1946.