TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

James Madison Morse v. United States

James Madison MORSE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Morse v. United States, 256 F.2d 280 (5th Cir. 1958)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 10, 1958
Docket
No. 17125_1
Judges
Rives, Jones, Brown
Citations
256 F.2d 2801958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4331

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The appellant brought a proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to have set aside his conviction and sentence for a violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2311 et seq. The appellant asserts that forty-six hours elapsed between the time of his arrest and the time when he was brought before a Commissioner for arraignment. He states that the delay was unnecessary, that during the delay efforts were made, without success, to procure a confession from him, and that he told the officers about a man known as Sparky for whom appellant had worked. He believed Sparky would testify for him. Sparky, however, testified against him and appellant expresses the belief that Sparky’s testimony adverse to him was procured by coercion. But for Sparky’s testimony, he claims, he would not have been convicted, and but for his unlawful detention he would not have mentioned Sparky. The doctrine of McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 , 63 S.Ct. 608 , 87 L.Ed. 819 , and Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 , 77 S.Ct. 1356 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 , does not help the appellant. Delay in taking an accused before a commissioner, though illegal, does not invalidate a conviction in the absence of prejudice resulting from the detention. United States v. Mitchell, 322 U.S. 65 , 64 S.Ct. 896 , 88 L.Ed. 1140 ; United States v. Levitón, 2d Cir., 1951, 193 F.2d 848 . No such prejudice is here shown. The judgment of the district court is Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1962: 11963: 11964: 21966: 11967: 11969: 11976: 11978: 11984: 11986: 11990: 119622026peak 1964 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Caffey438 S.W.2d 167 (Mo. 1969)
  2. Diaz v. United States264 F. Supp. 937 (E.D. La. 1967)
  3. United States v. Ruth Studley783 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1986)
  4. State v. Maldonado373 P.2d 583 (Ariz. 1962)
  5. James Willard Lovelace v. United States357 F.2d 306 (5th Cir. 1966)
  6. State v. Provost266 N.W.2d 96 (S.D. 1978)

Most recent

  1. Saunders v. State562 N.E.2d 729 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990)
  2. United States v. Ruth Studley783 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1986)
  3. Edwards v. State470 A.2d 1315 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1984)
  4. State v. Provost266 N.W.2d 96 (S.D. 1978)
  5. State v. McFarland548 P.2d 569 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976)
  6. State v. Caffey438 S.W.2d 167 (Mo. 1969)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943) 1,543
Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957) 1,083
United States v. Mitchell, 322 U.S. 65 (1944) 354
United States v. Leviton, 193 F.2d 848 (2d Cir. 1951) 69

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