Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

James E. Drury v. William Coy Cox, Sheriff of Pima County

James E. Drury v. William Coy Cox, Sheriff of Pima County, 457 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-03-07
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • stating that only in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant 4 entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until 5 after a judgment has been appealed from, and the case has been concluded in state 6 courts
  • stating that “only in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have 23 federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, 24 judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts.”
  • “Apparent finality of one issue is not 9 enough” to avoid dismissal under Younger where the judgment itself is not final
  • exhaustion of federal issue insufficient if criminal proceedings through direct appeal not yet complete
  • “[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction . . . until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts”
  • “[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts”
  • unusual circumstances is defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of 18
  • injunction or habeas corpus until after jury comes in, judgment has been appealed 19

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed James E. Drury v. William Coy Cox, Sheriff of Pima County. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
131 opinions
DRURY v. COX,457 F.2d 764(9th Cir. 1972)
JAMES E. DRURY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. WILLIAM COY COX, SHERIFF OF PIMA
COUNTY, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.
No. 71-2759.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 7, 1972.
Howard A. Kashman, Pima County Public Defender, Tucson, Ariz., for petitioner-appellant.

Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., Rose Silver, Pima County Atty., John L. Augustine, Deputy County Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Before CHAMBERS, KOELSCH and CHOY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] The district court considered the issue in this case to be whether the evidence at a preliminary hearing before an Arizona State Magistrate was sufficient to establish probable cause to bind Drury over for trial on an open charge of murder, degree unspecified. The Arizona Supreme Court held the evidence sufficient. Drury v. Burr,107 Ariz. 124,483 P.2d 539(1971). The district court, after an independent review of the record, agreed and denied Drury's petition for habeas corpus without a hearing. Drury appeals, claiming that his detention for trial amounted to a denial of due process because of lack of probable cause.

[2] We affirm on different grounds. Our reading of Younger v. Harris,401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669, convinces us that only in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in,Page 765judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts. Apparent finality of one issue is not enough.

[3] The order denying relief is affirmed.

[4] The mandate will issue now.Page 775