James P. Vale v. C. Murray Henderson, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary

430 F.2d 671, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7902
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 31, 1970
Docket28668_1
StatusPublished

This text of 430 F.2d 671 (James P. Vale v. C. Murray Henderson, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary) 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
James P. Vale v. C. Murray Henderson, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, 430 F.2d 671, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7902 (5th Cir. 1970).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court granting a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 to a prisoner of the state of Louisiana. The petition charged that the right of the petitioner, James P. Vale, had been violated at his state trial by the introduction of evidence at his state trial that was the result of an unreasonable search and seizure.

Our review of the District Court’s action here has in effect been made for us by the Supreme Court’s action in the case of petitioner’s brother, Donald Vale. Vale v. Louisiana, 1970, 399 U.S. 30, 90 S.C. 1969, 26 L.Ed.2d 409. There the Court reversed the state Court conviction, which was in the Court on a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, of Donald Vale, this petitioner’s brother. The two convictions grew out of the same episode. The officers arrested Donald Vale, who they believed was engaged in narcotics traffic, outside the family home. They proceeded to search the house and found a quantity of narcotics. As the search was in process, James Vale, this petitioner, appeared on the scene, was arrested, and the evidence found throughout the house was used to convict both brothers.

In reversing Donald Vale’s conviction, the Court found that the warrantless search of the house was unreasonable and that the evidence seized was tainted even without the added adulteration that would result if Chimel v. California, 1969, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 were to be applied retroactively. And as the State now concedes, there is no material distinction between this case and Donald Vale’s case. The District Court must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Chimel v. California
395 U.S. 752 (Supreme Court, 1969)
Vale v. Louisiana
399 U.S. 30 (Supreme Court, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
430 F.2d 671, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-p-vale-v-c-murray-henderson-warden-louisiana-state-penitentiary-ca5-1970.