James William Johnson v. Richard A. Chappell, Chairman U. S. Board of Parole
James William JOHNSON, Appellant, v. Richard A. CHAPPELL, Chairman U. S. Board of Parole, Et Al., Appellees
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
The real point on appeal revolves around the revocation of appellant’s parole on the basis of evidence before the Board which was not the basis upon which the original arrest warrant for violation of parole had been issued. The evidence referred to was an indictment of appellant, followed by his plea of guilty, for violation of the Dyer Act. However, appellant had some six or seven months notice, prior to his final revocation hearing, that the Board considered this new evidence to be ground for revocation. In these circumstances we do not think the use of the evidence invalidates the revocation order.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Strauss v. Smith
- Avrutine v. United States
- Robert L. Strauss v. P. G. Smith, Warden U. S. Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana, and Joseph Shore, United States Parole Board, Robert L
- United States v. Gary Lee Wickham
- Arthur Shelton v. United States Board of Parole, Harvey Marion Boswell v
- Waller v. Drago
Most recent
- Waller v. Drago
- United States v. Gary Lee Wickham
- Avrutine v. United States
- Robert L. Strauss v. P. G. Smith, Warden U. S. Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana, and Joseph Shore, United States Parole Board, Robert L
- Strauss v. Smith
- Arthur Shelton v. United States Board of Parole, Harvey Marion Boswell v
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.