U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1944

Sheehan v. Huff

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided March 13, 1944 · Arnold, Edgerton, Groner

142 F.2d 81; 78 U.S. App. D.C. 391; 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3258 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. John J. Carmody (appointed by this Court), of Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. Charles B. Murray, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Edward M. Curran, United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee. Mr. John P. Burke, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Green v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1951)
United States v. Laffal (D.C. 1951)
Chandler v. United States (1st Cir. 1948)
Davenport v. District of Columbia (D.C. 1948)
United States v. James Milton Cotten and William Lowell Roberts (9th Cir. 1973)
Robert Wm. Crawford v. Common Pleas Court of Lucas County, Toledo, Ohio, and Circuit Court of Kalamazoo, Michigan (6th Cir. 1959)
State v. Wise (N.M. 1954)
Hatfield v. Warden of State Prison (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1950)
Edmondson v. Brady (Md. 1947)
Jackson v. Olson (Neb. 1946)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Appellant is serving a sentence for robbery imposed in the District of Columbia. This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant alleges (1) that prior to his trial he was brought from Virginia to the District of Columbia without extradition proceedings in spite of his protest and his unwillingness to waive extradition, and (2) that the court below denied the petition for habeas corpus without appointing counsel for petitioner.

Counsel for petitioner, appointed by this court to represent him on appeal, has filed a persuasive brief. It admits that the Supreme Court has decided that jurisdiction in a criminal case is not impaired by the fact that the accused was brought before the court in an unlawful manner, but urges these decisions should not be followed. We believe, however, that the question is so well settled that it cannot be reopened here. Mahon v. Justice, 1888, 127 U.S. 700, 8 S.Ct. 1204, 32 L.Ed. 283; Lascelles v. Georgia, 1893, 148 U.S. 537, 13 S.Ct. 687, 37 L.Ed. 549; Pettibone v. Nichols, 1906, 203 U.S. 192, 27 S.Ct. 111, 51 L.Ed. 148, 7 Ann.Cas. 1047.

The failure to appoint an attorney in the court below was not error because under these decisions the petition presents no substantial question.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.