Robert T. Mathis v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

Fifth Circuit

Robert T. Mathis v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

351 F.2d 489

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 5, 1965

Docket22436_1

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 351 F.2d 489 (Robert T. Mathis v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida) 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

Robert T. Mathis v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, 351 F.2d 489 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the trial court denying the petition for habeas corpus from a state court conviction is affirmed.

Appellant’s complaint that the trial court failed to invoke the rule of sequestration of witnesses does not raise a question that can be reached by federal habeas corpus, since such denial does not amount to a deprivation of appellant’s constitutional rights, United States v. Brooks, 6 Cir., 303 F.2d 851.

The contention that appellant’s constitutional rights were denied him by the knowing use by the State of perjured testimony has not been presented to the state court for relief. It can therefore not be considered here. So, too, was there a failure by the appellant to present to the state court his contention that there had been an illegal exclusion of Negroes from the jury.

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

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the trial court denying the petition for habeas corpus from a state court conviction is affirmed.

Appellant’s complaint that the trial court failed to invoke the rule of sequestration of witnesses does not raise a question that can be reached by federal habeas corpus, since such denial does not amount to a deprivation of appellant’s constitutional rights, United States v. Brooks, 6 Cir., 303 F.2d 851.

The contention that appellant’s constitutional rights were denied him by the knowing use by the State of perjured testimony has not been presented to the state court for relief. It can therefore not be considered here. So, too, was there a failure by the appellant to present to the state court his contention that there had been an illegal exclusion of Negroes from the jury.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

351 F.2d 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-t-mathis-v-louie-l-wainwright-director-division-of-corrections-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack