Paul Lee Hibdon v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Paul Lee Hibdon v. United States

235 F.2d 49, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3823

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 2, 1956

Docket12793_1

StatusPublished

This text of 235 F.2d 49 (Paul Lee Hibdon v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paul Lee Hibdon v. United States, 235 F.2d 49, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3823 (6th Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order denying motion to vacate sentence. It was submitted after argument of counsel and upon the various communications of the appellant addressed individually to members of the court in substitution for briefs, a course not to be considered as a precedent. The appellant charges bias and prejudice of the trial judge. They are no more than generalizations without specific instances to which consideration may be given.

There was no petition or affidavit of disqualification presented either before or during the trial. The case was tried twice. The error which we perceived at the first trial in Hibdon v. United States, 6 Cir., 204 F.2d 834, 37 A.L.R.2d 1130 was not repeated and the petitioner was convicted by unanimous verdict of the jury. The second appeal on the ground of bias and prejudice of the trial judge was dismissed in 6 Cir., 213 F.2d 869 and motion to vacate sentence challenging the present case was ruled upon by another judge of the district.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order denying motion to vacate sentence. It was submitted after argument of counsel and upon the various communications of the appellant addressed individually to members of the court in substitution for briefs, a course not to be considered as a precedent. The appellant charges bias and prejudice of the trial judge. They are no more than generalizations without specific instances to which consideration may be given.

There was no petition or affidavit of disqualification presented either before or during the trial. The case was tried twice. The error which we perceived at the first trial in Hibdon v. United States, 6 Cir., 204 F.2d 834, 37 A.L.R.2d 1130 was not repeated and the petitioner was convicted by unanimous verdict of the jury. The second appeal on the ground of bias and prejudice of the trial judge was dismissed in 6 Cir., 213 F.2d 869 and motion to vacate sentence challenging the present case was ruled upon by another judge of the district.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 F.2d 49, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-lee-hibdon-v-united-states-ca6-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack