Money Williams v. Louie Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

Money Williams v. Louie Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections

528 F.2d 1364, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12280

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 22, 1976

Docket75--4425

StatusPublished

This text of 528 F.2d 1364 (Money Williams v. Louie Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections) 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

Money Williams v. Louie Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, 528 F.2d 1364, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12280 (5th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this habeas corpus action appellant contended in the district court that his state bank robbery conviction should be set aside because of improper prosecutorial comment on appellant’s failure to testify at trial and his refusal to make a statement to police. The district court dismissed the petition. This dismissal was appropriate; the prosecutor did not comment on appellant’s failure to testify or to make a statement, but on a statement appellant did make to the police that was contradictory to his position at trial. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s statement merely called attention to a prior inconsistent statement that impeached appellant’s trial alibi. This was not improper. See generally United States v. Maizumi, 526 F.2d 848, at p. 850 (5th Cir. 1976).

In his appellate brief appellant has argued for the first time that he was the victim of a tainted pre-trial identification and illegal evidence. He also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. These issues were not presented to or considered by the district court and we do not, therefore, entertain them. See McGee v. United States District Court, 489 F.2d 703 (5th Cir. 1973).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this habeas corpus action appellant contended in the district court that his state bank robbery conviction should be set aside because of improper prosecutorial comment on appellant’s failure to testify at trial and his refusal to make a statement to police. The district court dismissed the petition. This dismissal was appropriate; the prosecutor did not comment on appellant’s failure to testify or to make a statement, but on a statement appellant did make to the police that was contradictory to his position at trial. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s statement merely called attention to a prior inconsistent statement that impeached appellant’s trial alibi. This was not improper. See generally United States v. Maizumi, 526 F.2d 848, at p. 850 (5th Cir. 1976).

In his appellate brief appellant has argued for the first time that he was the victim of a tainted pre-trial identification and illegal evidence. He also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. These issues were not presented to or considered by the district court and we do not, therefore, entertain them. See McGee v. United States District Court, 489 F.2d 703 (5th Cir. 1973).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

528 F.2d 1364, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/money-williams-v-louie-wainwright-director-division-of-corrections-ca5-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack