Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Clifford A. Williams v. Raymond W. Anderson

362 F.2d 1011

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1966-07-21
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The District Court denied the application of appellant for a writ of habeas *1012 corpus. Appellant had been convicted of burglary in the state court on March 30, 1961. The single issue of substance raised on this appeal was the asserted retroactiveness of the Escobedo rule. The United States Supreme Court in Johnson v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Clifford A. Williams v. Raymond W. Anderson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
9 opinions
WILLIAMS v. ANDERSON,362 F.2d 1011(3rd Cir. 1966)
Clifford A. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Raymond W. ANDERSON, Appellee.
No. 15163.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued April 11, 1966.
Decided July 21, 1966.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware; Caleb R. Layton, III, Judge.
D.T. Spagnoletti, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

F.L. Peter Stone, Deputy Atty. Gen., of the State of Delaware, Wilmington, Del., for appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, GANEY and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The District Court denied the application of appellant for a writ of habeasPage 1012corpus. Appellant had been convicted of burglary in the state court on March 30, 1961. The single issue of substance raised on this appeal was the asserted retroactiveness of the Escobedo rule. The United States Supreme Court in Johnson v. New Jersey,384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (June 20, 1966) ruled "that Escobedo affects only those cases in which the trial began after June 22, 1964, the date of that decision." (86 S.Ct. p. 1775).

Appellant also contends that Jackson v. Denno,378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964) governs here. The undisputed facts make it very clear that there was no issue in this trial with respect to the voluntariness of the confession. The point has no merit.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.Page 1013