Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Richardson v. Zuppann

Richardson v. Zuppann, 174 F.2d 829 (3d Cir. 1949)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1949-05-12
Topic: general

How later courts describe this case

investigating officer’s failure personally to interview the witnesses, see 81 F.Supp. 809, 812

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Richardson v. Zuppann. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 3 opinions

RICHARDSON v. ZUPPANN,174 F.2d 829(3rd Cir. 1949)

Edward H. RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. Colonel Lloyd ZUPPANN.

No. 9898.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued April 21, 1949.

Decided May 12, 1949.

Appeal from the United States District Court for Middle District of Pennsylvania; Frederick V. Follmer, Judge.

Ralph S. Croskey, Philadelphia, Pa. (Croskey Edwards, Philadelphia, Pa., W.J. Fitzgerald and Fitzgerald Kelly, Scranton, Pa., Merrill W. Linn, Lewisburg, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Lt. Col. Nicholas R. Voorhis, Washington, D.C. (Arthur A. Maguire, U.S. Atty., Scranton, Pa., Charles W. Kalp, Asst. U.S. Atty., Lewisburg, Pa., Reginald C. Miller, Lt. Col. JAGC, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and McLAUGHLIN and O'CONNELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We have examined with care the briefs and appendices of the parties in the instant case and have given due consideration to the oral arguments. The first point raised by the appellant, namely, that the pre-trial investigation under Article of War 70, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1542, was conducted in such a manner as to deprive the General Court Martial of jurisdiction of the appellant, is disposed of by the opinion of the Supreme Court in Humphrey, Warden, v. Smith,336 U.S. 695, 69 S.Ct. 830. We state that this point was dealt with adequately in the opinion of Judge Follmer,81 F. Supp. 809, as were the other three grounds raised by the appellant in the court below. We conclude that the appellant received substantial justice from the Court Martial which tried him and that his constitutional rights were not prejudiced.

Accordingly the order of the court below denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus and dismissing the rule to show cause will be affirmed.Page 830