Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Barber, v. United States
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit. - 197 F.2d 815
June 11, 1952
Isaac Jack Barber, pro se.
Edwin Langley, U.S. Atty., and J. W. Crawford, Asst. U.S. Atty., Muskogee, Okla., for United States.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and HUXMAN and PICKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Isaac Jack Barber, filed a motion in the sentencing court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate and set aside his judgment of conviction in that court. He has appealed from an adverse ruling.
In his motion filed in the sentencing court, appellant states the question as follows:
'There is only one question of law to be decided in this motion and it is can the government use evidence illegally seized from the defendant's home be used against him.'
The agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation entered appellant's home and seized a pair of shoes without a search warrant. These shoes were introduced in evidence at his trial over objection by his attorney. Conceding, without deciding, that the shoes were erroneously received in evidence, their reception at most constituted a trial error occurring during the course of the trial. That error, if such it was, was one that could be challenged only by taking an appeal from the judgment of conviction and may not be raised for the first time by a proceeding under Sec. 2255.1
Affirmed.
See Price v. Johnston, Warden, 9 Cir., 125 F.2d 806; Bozel v. Hudspeth, Warden, 10 Cir., 126 F.2d 585; Howell v. United States, 4 Cir., 172 F.2d 213; Dennis v. United States, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 195; Losieau v. United States, 8 Cir., 177 F.2d 919