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
United States of America Ex Rel. Alfred J. Ackerman, Appellant, v. Frank C. Johnston, Warden, Western State Penitentiary
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. - 235 F.2d 958
Argued June 21, 1956.Decided Aug. 7, 1956.Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 1956
Marjorie Hanson Matson, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Wendell G. Freeland, Asst. Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., Samuel Strauss, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Edward C. Boyle, Dist. Atty. of Allegheny County, S. Donald Wiley, Asst. Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, GOODRICH, Circuit Judge, and VAN DUSEN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The record demonstrates that the relator-appellant, Ackerman, has failed to exhaust his State remedies on the issue of denial of due process by reason of widespread pretrial publicity which is alleged to have created an atmosphere of hysteria and prejudice. It is conceded by Ackerman that the issue of such pervasive and unfavorable publicity was not submitted to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Commonwealth v. Ackerman, 176 Pa.Super. 80, 106 A.2d 886. See Rule 28. It is further conceded that that issue was not even referred to in the petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Careful consideration has been given to the arguments raised by appellant under II and IV of his brief.
Accordingly, the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.