From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bigrow v. Hiatt

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Jul 2, 1948
168 F.2d 992 (3d Cir. 1948)

Opinion

No. 9563.

Argued March 16, 1948.

Decided July 2, 1948.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Frederick V. Follmer, Judge.

Habeas corpus proceeding by William F. Bigrow, petitioner, against William H. Hiatt, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, and Robert P. Patterson, Secretary of War, and/or his successors. From an order denying the petition, 70 F. Supp. 826, which was adhered to on rehearing, 74 F. Supp. 240, petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.

Major Thayer Chapman, of Washington, D.C., for the Government.

Before BIGGS, O'CONNELL and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.


A careful examination of the record in this case convinces us that the appellant, Bigrow, now a military prisoner in the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, received a fair trial by court-martial for unlawfully killing a brother soldier by shooting him in the neck with a sub-machine gun, a violation of Article of War 93, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1565, and for misbehavior before the enemy in that he was drunk on duty in the presence of the enemy, a violation of Article of War 75, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1547. The offenses occurred in the vicinity of Vannes, France, on or about August 9, 1944. In nowise was the appellant denied due process of law. See also the opinion of the court below, D.C., 70 F. Supp. 826. The order of the court below will be affirmed.


Summaries of

Bigrow v. Hiatt

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Jul 2, 1948
168 F.2d 992 (3d Cir. 1948)
Case details for

Bigrow v. Hiatt

Case Details

Full title:BIGROW v. HIATT et al

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Jul 2, 1948

Citations

168 F.2d 992 (3d Cir. 1948)

Citing Cases

White v. Humphrey

As to the sufficiency of the evidence. As we said in Bigrow v. Hiatt, D.C.M.D.Pa., 70 F. Supp. 826, 830,…

United States v. Walker

The sufficiency of the indictment, therefore, is not open to collateral attack in this Court in habeas corpus…