Wilhoit v. Sanford

Fifth Circuit

Wilhoit v. Sanford

152 F.2d 960

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 12, 1946

DocketNo. 11498

StatusPublished

This text of 152 F.2d 960 (Wilhoit v. Sanford) 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

Wilhoit v. Sanford, 152 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The absence of a district attorney at the preliminary- hearing before the United States Commissioner did not affect the jurisdiction of the district court to try the case. .

It may be assumed that the district attorney saw the report of the testimony before the Commissioner, or otherwise knew that the testimony of the girl who was alleged in the indictment to have been transported in interstate commerce for immoral purposes would be different on the trial from that given before the Commissioner. She admitted the untruth of her first statement, and claimed she was then intimidated by the accused. The United States could use her as a witness, no government representative being shown to have procured her to swear falsely, leaving it to the jury to determine which of her differing statements was true. This is an ordinary function of the jury. Their decision is not reviewable on habeas corpus. The decision in Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 55 S.Ct. 340, 79 L.Ed. 791, 98 A.L.R. 406, has no application. Compare Wilhoit v. Hiatt, Warden, D.C., 60 F.Supp. 664.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The absence of a district attorney at the preliminary- hearing before the United States Commissioner did not affect the jurisdiction of the district court to try the case. .

It may be assumed that the district attorney saw the report of the testimony before the Commissioner, or otherwise knew that the testimony of the girl who was alleged in the indictment to have been transported in interstate commerce for immoral purposes would be different on the trial from that given before the Commissioner. She admitted the untruth of her first statement, and claimed she was then intimidated by the accused. The United States could use her as a witness, no government representative being shown to have procured her to swear falsely, leaving it to the jury to determine which of her differing statements was true. This is an ordinary function of the jury. Their decision is not reviewable on habeas corpus. The decision in Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 55 S.Ct. 340, 79 L.Ed. 791, 98 A.L.R. 406, has no application. Compare Wilhoit v. Hiatt, Warden, D.C., 60 F.Supp. 664.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 F.2d 960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilhoit-v-sanford-ca5-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack