John Dee Larsen v. Orvil Stiles, Acting Warden of Idaho State Penitentiary, State of Idaho

Ninth Circuit

John Dee Larsen v. Orvil Stiles, Acting Warden of Idaho State Penitentiary, State of Idaho

417 F.2d 634, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11533

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 11, 1969

Docket22484

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 417 F.2d 634 (John Dee Larsen v. Orvil Stiles, Acting Warden of Idaho State Penitentiary, State of Idaho) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John Dee Larsen v. Orvil Stiles, Acting Warden of Idaho State Penitentiary, State of Idaho, 417 F.2d 634, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11533 (9th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated in the order of the District Judge denying appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Inasmuch as appellant’s state court conviction, State v. Larsen, 91 Idaho 42, 415 P.2d 685 (1966), preceded Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the Miranda rule does not apply. Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966). Neither Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737, 86 S.Ct. 1761, 16 L.Ed.2d 895 (1966), nor Greenwald v. Wisconsin, 390 U.S. 519, 88 S.Ct. 1152, 20 L.Ed.2d 77 (1968) enlarges the scope of Miranda to fit the facts here presented.

On the issue of alleged prejudicial publicity, the District Judge was on sound ground in requiring the appellant to first present this subject to the Idaho Courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

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

PER CURIAM:

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated in the order of the District Judge denying appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Inasmuch as appellant’s state court conviction, State v. Larsen, 91 Idaho 42, 415 P.2d 685 (1966), preceded Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the Miranda rule does not apply. Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966). Neither Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737, 86 S.Ct. 1761, 16 L.Ed.2d 895 (1966), nor Greenwald v. Wisconsin, 390 U.S. 519, 88 S.Ct. 1152, 20 L.Ed.2d 77 (1968) enlarges the scope of Miranda to fit the facts here presented.

On the issue of alleged prejudicial publicity, the District Judge was on sound ground in requiring the appellant to first present this subject to the Idaho Courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 F.2d 634, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-dee-larsen-v-orvil-stiles-acting-warden-of-idaho-state-penitentiary-ca9-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack