United States ex rel. Hunter v. Follette

Second Circuit

United States ex rel. Hunter v. Follette

420 F.2d 779

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided November 18, 1969·No. No. 306, Docket 33606·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We affirm in open court the judgment of the District Court which denied without a hearing John O. Hunter’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Plunter, who is imprisoned after conviction of first degree manslaughter, claims: (1) that he was deprived of a fair trial when the prosecutor informed the jury in his opening statement that Hunter had previously been convicted of a felony similar to the count in the indictment relating to use of a dangerous weapon, former N.Y.Penal Law, Consol. Laws, c. 40, § 1897(1); (2) that he was prejudiced by the State’s failure to provide him with a free copy of the trial transcript although one was available to retained counsel who represented Hunter on his appeal in the State court; and (3) that the state trial court stenographer’s failure to transcribe the opening and closing statements at the trial denied him due process of law. For the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Frankel, 307 F.Supp. 1023 (S.D.N.Y.1969), we hold that the petition was properly denied.

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

PER CURIAM:

We affirm in open court the judgment of the District Court which denied without a hearing John O. Hunter’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Plunter, who is imprisoned after conviction of first degree manslaughter, claims: (1) that he was deprived of a fair trial when the prosecutor informed the jury in his opening statement that Hunter had previously been convicted of a felony similar to the count in the indictment relating to use of a dangerous weapon, former N.Y.Penal Law, Consol. Laws, c. 40, § 1897(1); (2) that he was prejudiced by the State’s failure to provide him with a free copy of the trial transcript although one was available to retained counsel who represented Hunter on his appeal in the State court; and (3) that the state trial court stenographer’s failure to transcribe the opening and closing statements at the trial denied him due process of law. For the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Frankel, 307 F.Supp. 1023 (S.D.N.Y.1969), we hold that the petition was properly denied.

United States ex rel. Hunter v. Follette, 420 F.2d 779 (2d Cir. 1969).

Pincite

420 F.2d 779 (United States ex rel. Hunter v. Follette) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related