W. C. Gresham v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

W. C. Gresham v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Department of Corrections

374 F.2d 884, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7001

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 23, 1967

Docket23990

StatusPublished

This text of 374 F.2d 884 (W. C. Gresham v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Department 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

W. C. Gresham v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Department of Corrections, 374 F.2d 884, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7001 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a Texas prisoner, received a plenary hearing on his petition for federal habeas corpus. He is serving a life sentence for the murder of a fellow prison inmate. He was convicted in 1933 and now claims that he was denied a fair trial at the time in three respects. First, all of his witnesses were intimidated to the extent that they refused to testify; second, he was deprived of certain defenses by being tried with three co-defendants; and third, he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because there was a conflict of interest between his own representation and that of his co-defendants. The District Court ruled against appellant in every respect and that ruling is amply supported by the facts and the law.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a Texas prisoner, received a plenary hearing on his petition for federal habeas corpus. He is serving a life sentence for the murder of a fellow prison inmate. He was convicted in 1933 and now claims that he was denied a fair trial at the time in three respects. First, all of his witnesses were intimidated to the extent that they refused to testify; second, he was deprived of certain defenses by being tried with three co-defendants; and third, he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because there was a conflict of interest between his own representation and that of his co-defendants. The District Court ruled against appellant in every respect and that ruling is amply supported by the facts and the law.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 F.2d 884, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-c-gresham-v-dr-george-j-beto-director-department-of-corrections-ca5-1967.