Miller v. Hiatt

M.D. Pennsylvania

Miller v. Hiatt

51 F. Supp. 76, 1943 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2334

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedAugust 4, 1943

DocketNo. 149

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 51 F. Supp. 76 (Miller v. Hiatt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. Hiatt, 51 F. Supp. 76, 1943 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2334 (M.D. Pa. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, District Judge.

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus requests the petitioner’s release from the Federal Penitentiary at Lewisburg, where he is serving a term of imprisonment imposed by the United States District Court at Columbus, Ohio.

Petitioner alleges his arrest by operators of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New York City, his removal to investigation headquarters where he states that he was held incommunicado for hours, refused the right of legal representation, subjected to intensive and continuous questioning, during which time he was refused food and drink.

Petitioner complains that a statement secured from him and signed by him during this period was later admitted as evidence at his trial. While the case is not cited by the petitioner, it is apparent that he relies upon the recent opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in McNabb et al. v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. -, in which case the Supreme Court reversed a conviction based on a confession, which, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, had been obtained improperly.

Petitioner also complains that during the trial of his case a witness, who was termed a “prosecutrix and called as a government witness, and of the Government, contended a conspiracy did also exist”. Petitioner contends that this witness was a co-conspirator whose testimony was entirely unsupported and that the admission of her testimony materially assisted “the illegal sentencing of the petitioner”.

All of the matters relied upon by the petitioner constitute questions of the admissibility of evidence which was passed upon by the trial court and are not subject to review in habeas corpus proceedings. It is well established that habeas corpus proceedings cannot take the place of, or be substituted for, an appeal. Vigoretti v. Hill, D.C., 16 F.Supp. 41.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed and the writ denied.

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

JOHNSON, District Judge.

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus requests the petitioner’s release from the Federal Penitentiary at Lewisburg, where he is serving a term of imprisonment imposed by the United States District Court at Columbus, Ohio.

Petitioner alleges his arrest by operators of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New York City, his removal to investigation headquarters where he states that he was held incommunicado for hours, refused the right of legal representation, subjected to intensive and continuous questioning, during which time he was refused food and drink.

Petitioner complains that a statement secured from him and signed by him during this period was later admitted as evidence at his trial. While the case is not cited by the petitioner, it is apparent that he relies upon the recent opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in McNabb et al. v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. -, in which case the Supreme Court reversed a conviction based on a confession, which, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, had been obtained improperly.

Petitioner also complains that during the trial of his case a witness, who was termed a “prosecutrix and called as a government witness, and of the Government, contended a conspiracy did also exist”. Petitioner contends that this witness was a co-conspirator whose testimony was entirely unsupported and that the admission of her testimony materially assisted “the illegal sentencing of the petitioner”.

All of the matters relied upon by the petitioner constitute questions of the admissibility of evidence which was passed upon by the trial court and are not subject to review in habeas corpus proceedings. It is well established that habeas corpus proceedings cannot take the place of, or be substituted for, an appeal. Vigoretti v. Hill, D.C., 16 F.Supp. 41.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed and the writ denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 F. Supp. 76, 1943 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-hiatt-pamd-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack