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. William Epton, Petitioner-appellant, v. Albert Nenna, Warden, Manhattan House of Detention for Men,respondent-appellee
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. - 355 F.2d 14
Argued Jan. 7, 1966.Decided Jan. 11, 1966
Joseph A. Phillips, Asst. Dist. Atty., New York County, N.Y., for respondent-appellee.
Eleanor Jackson Piel, of Donner & Piel, New York City (Sanford M. Katz, New York City, on the brief), for petitioner-appellant.
Before MOORE, SMITH and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner was convicted on December 20, 1965, after a trial before Mr. Justice Markewitch and a jury in the New York Supreme Court of conspiracy to riot, conspiracy to commit anarchy and anarchy. Bail was denied by the Justice; sentence was set for January 27, 1966. Petitoner has concededly made no effort to seek relief from this denial in the State courts. Instead an application was made for a writ of habeas corpus to a judge of the United States District Court. The application was denied upon the ground that petitioner had failed to exhaust state remedies. This court accelerated the appeal which was heard on January 7, 1966.
Although petitioner sets forth many points of alleged error in the state court trial, these are matters for correction (if errors they be) in the state courts. Petitioner claims that New York has no procedure for reviewing the denial of bail between conviction and sentence. Judge Tenney in a well-reasoned opinion had serious doubts as to 'whether petitoner has authoritatively shown the nonexistence of any remedies.' Despite the suggestion of this court earlier in the week that such remedies be sought, no effort was made to seek relief in the state courts. The facts of this case do not warrant intervention by the federal courts to overrule the discretion exercised by a state court Justice before whom the case was tried and who has not yet imposed sentence.
Dismissal of the writ affirmed.