James Edward Wingo, Jr., Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee., 244 F.2d 800 (6th Cir. 1957)

Federal Circuits, 6th Cir. (May 31, 1957)

Docket number: 13187


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/james-edward-wingo-united-states-america-36663638
Id. vLex: VLEX-36663638

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Lewis Woodard Larson, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee., 275 F.2d 673 (5th Cir. 1960)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir. - Frank Houser and Winnie Houser, Appellants, v. United States of America, Appellee., 508 F.2d 509 (8th Cir. 1974)

Text:

James Rutherford, Nashville, Tenn., for appellant.

Fred Elledge, Jr., and James R. Tuck, Nashville, Tenn., for appellee.

Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, in this proceeding under Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.Code, seeks to vacate judgment imposed in the U. S. District Court on the ground of prejudicial newspaper publicity during the overnight recess of the jury, during which the jurors separated and went to their respective homes. Briggs v. United States, 6 Cir., 221 F.2d 636, 638. Following a hearing in which appellant introduced the newspaper articles complained of but no other evidence on the issue, the District Judge dismissed the proceeding.

The question presented could have and should have been raised by motion for mistrial in the trial of the case in the District Court. No appeal was taken from the judgment on the verdict. Compare Briggs v. United States, supra; Krogmann v. United States, 6 Cir., 225 F.2d 220, 228. The provisions of Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.Code, cannot be used as a substitute for appeal. Sunal v. Large, 332 U.S. 174, 178-179, 67 S.Ct. 1588, 91 L.Ed. 1982; Ford v. United States, 6 Cir., 234 F.2d 835, 836.

The appellant is in custody under a state sentence, not the sentence in the federal court, which he is attacking in this proceeding. If the sentence under attack should be held invalid, it would not result in appellant's release from confinement. The present proceeding is premature and will not lie. Duggins v. United States, 6 Cir., 240 F.2d 479.

The judgment is affirmed.

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access