TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States of America ex rel. Kenneth Headley, Bobby Sams and Charles Huntley v. Vincent R. Mancusi, Warden, Attica Prison, Attica, New York

UNITED STATES of America Ex Rel. Kenneth HEADLEY, Bobby Sams and Charles Huntley, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Vincent R. MANCUSI, Warden, Attica Prison, Attica, New York, Et Al., Respondents-Appellees

United States ex rel. Kenneth Headley, Bobby Sams & Charles Huntley v. Vincent R. Mancusi,, Attica Prison, Attica, N.Y., 415 F.2d 277 (2d Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 12, 1969
Docket
No. 33592_1
Judges
Waterman, Hays, Bartels
Citations
415 F.2d 2771969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10814

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

The habeas corpus petitions of these New York State prisoners serving sentences for robbery in the first degree were consolidated for consideration by the district court.

Petitioners moved for permission to amend their petitions by adding claims under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) and Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 , 88 S.Ct. 1921 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 (1968). Their motion was denied and they appeal.

Ordinarily we would be unwilling to entertain an appeal from such an order, since there are still pending before the district court a number of other claims of petitioners. However, in view of our determination that petitioners must seek relief in the state courts of New York, we believe that we would not be justified in imposing upon them the delay which would be involved in returning them to the district court for a complete consideration of their petitions before accepting the appeal.

On the Bruton issue itself, we affirm the determination of the district court requiring the petitioners to exhaust the New York State remedy available to them under People v. Pohl, 23 N.Y.2d 290 , 296 N.Y.S.2d 352 , 244 N.E.2d 47 (1968). See United States ex rel. Smith v. Follette, 405 F.2d 1199 (2d Cir. 1969); United States ex rel. Sloan v. McMann, 415 F.2d 275 (2d Cir. 1969).

How later courts describe this case

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

1971: 11974: 21986: 119712026peak 1974 · 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 5

DepthCaseCited by
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) 7,533
Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 (1968) 501
People v. Pohl, 244 N.E.2d 47 (N.Y. 1968) 8
United States ex rel. Clarence Lee Sloan v. McMann, 415 F.2d 275 (2d Cir. 1969) 12
United States ex rel. Smith v. Follette, 405 F.2d 1199 (2d Cir. 1969) 7

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