As we have had previously, it is constitutionally permissible to refer a case directly to the grand jury without an examining trial. Woods v. State of Texas, 5th Cir. 1968, 404 F.2d 332; Murphy v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1969, 416 F.2d 98; United States v. Coley, 5th Cir. 1971, 441 F.2d 1299, cert. denied 404 U.S. 867, 92 S.Ct. 85, 30 L.Ed.2d 111. That is what was done in the case sub judice. Finally, the appellant contends that he was denied compulsory process for obtaining testimony of several defense witnesses, due to alleged dereliction of his court-appointed counsel.
This Court has held that submission of an accused's case directly to a grand jury, even absent a preliminary examination, is not constitutionally impermissible. Woods v. Texas, 5 Cir. 1968, 404 F.2d 332. Coley's argument does not impel us to reverse our position. Second, the Constitution does not require preliminary hearings.
They hold that an accused has no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing.”); see also United States v. Coley, 441 F.2d 1299, 1301 (5th Cir. 1971) (“Failure to hold a preliminary hearing, without more, does not amount to a violation of constitutional rights which would vitiate a subsequent conviction.”); Woods v. State of Tex., 404 F.2d 332, 332 (5th Cir. 1968) (rejecting petitioner's contention that referral of his case directly to a grand jury without a preliminary examining trial was unconstitutional); Dillard v. Bomar, 342 F.2d 789, 790 (6th Cir. 1965) (“We do not find that the Supreme Court has ever held that an accused has a constitutional right to a preliminary hearing.”)
Similarly, the federal constitution guarantees neither a preliminary hearing nor an examining trial before an indictment. See Siwakowski v. Beto, 455 F.2d 915, 916 (5th Cir. 1972); Richardson v. Texas, 425 F.2d 1372, 1373 (5th Cir. 1970); Murphy v. Beto, 416 F.2d 98, 100 (5th Cir. 1969); Woods v. Texas, 404 F.2d 332, 332 (5th Cir. 1968). Plaintiff has been given an opportunity to expound on the factual allegations of his complaint by way of questionnaire.
The decision by state authorities to seek petitioner's indictment in lieu of affording petitioner a preliminary hearing or examining trial also did not affect the validity of petitioner's indictment.See Siwakowski v. Beto, 455 F.2d 915, 916 (5th Cir. 1972); Richardson v. State of Texas, 425 F.2d 1372, 1373 (5th Cir. 1970); Murphy v. Beto, 416 F.2d 98, 100 (5th Cir. 1969); Woods v. State of Texas, 404 F.2d 332, 332 (5th Cir. 1968).See Tarpley v. Estelle, 703 F.2d 157, 162 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied sub nom. McKaskle v. Tarpley, 464 U.S. 1002, 104 S.Ct. 508, 78 L.Ed.2d 697 (1983).
"The federal courts share the view which we take. They hold that an accused has no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing. See Dillard v. Bomar, 342 F.2d 789, 790 (6 Cir.); Woods v. Texas, 404 F.2d 332 (5 Cir.). "The appellant did not raise this issue upon his criminal trial or appeal. He does not allege here and nothing in the record shows that he asked for and was denied a commitment hearing prior to his indictment by the grand jury.
The federal courts share the view which we take. They hold that an accused has no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing. See Dillard v. Bomar, 342 F.2d 789, 790 (6 Cir.); Woods v. Texas, 404 F.2d 332 (5 Cir.). The appellant did not raise this issue upon his criminal trial or appeal. He does not allege here and nothing in the record shows that he asked for and was denied a commitment hearing prior to his indictment by the grand jury.