TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States of America ex rel. Silvio De Vita v. Lloyd W. McCorkle Principal Keeper of the New Jersey State Prison at Trenton, New Jersey

UNITED STATES of America Ex Rel. Silvio DE VITA, Appellant, v. Lloyd W. McCORKLE, Principal Keeper of the New Jersey State Prison at Trenton, New Jersey

United States ex rel. Silvio De Vita v. Lloyd W. McCorkle Principal Keeper of the N.J. State Prison at Trenton, N.J., 214 F.2d 823 (3d Cir. 1954)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
August 18, 1954
Docket
No. 11399
Judges
Biggs, Maris, Goodrich
Citations
214 F.2d 8231954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2775

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

De Vita, found guilty of murder in connection with an armed robbery in New Jersey, petitioned the court below for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he had been denied due process of law, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, by the State Tribunals. Specifically he alleges that one of the jurors who sat in this case was not an impartial or indifferent person as required by law. He is under sentence of death, to be executed in the week commencing August 15th, 1954.

The court below by Judge Modarelli denied the relief sought by De Vita but nonetheless granted a certificate of probable cause for appeal pursuant to Section 2253, 28 U.S.C., and entered an order staying De Vita’s execution until noon Thursday, August 19, 1954. De Vita has appealed and has petitioned this court for the stay of his execution pending the disposition of the appeal. We shall grant the stay. It obviously would be a mockery of federal justice to execute De Vita pending the disposition of his appeal in view of the fact that Judge Mo-darelli, after denying the petition for habeas corpus, granted a certificate of probable cause for appeal. See Fouquette v. Bernard, 9 Cir., 1952, 198 F.2d 96 . In so acting we are not unaware of the delicate balance that exists and must continue to exist between the State and federal tribunals in matters of this nature. But under the circumstances presented we have no other alternative.

Accordingly, a stay of execution will be granted pending the disposition of the appeal in the instant case.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1954: 11955: 11957: 21983: 119542026peak 1957 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Fouquette v. Bernard, 198 F.2d 96 (9th Cir. 1952) 12

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list