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
Allen Hodge, Petitioner-appellant, v. Robert J. Henderson, Superintendent, Auburn Correctionalfacility, Respondent-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 929 F.2d 61
Argued March 20, 1991.Decided March 26, 1991
James A. Cohen, Lincoln Square Legal Services, Inc., New York City (Eric C. Rosenbaum, Marc E. Miller, Legal Interns, Lincoln Square Legal Services, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Donald J. Siewert, Asst. Dist. Atty., New York County, New York City (Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. for New York County, Mark Dwyer, Asst. Dist. Atty., New York County, New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before FEINBERG, MESKILL and ALTIMARI, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Duffy, J., on July 30, 1990, denying Hodge's petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus but granting a certificate of probable cause. Hodge, having been convicted of first degree robbery after a jury trial in the Supreme Court of New York, is currently incarcerated at a New York state correctional facility. In support of his habeas petition, Hodge advanced numerous arguments before the district court. Hodge limited his appeal of that decision to three specific claims: (1) he was denied his Sixth Amendment right of self-representation, (2) the identification procedures which resulted in his arrest were unconstitutionally suggestive, and (3) the trial court's alibi instruction unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof away from the state.
Judge Duffy, in a well reasoned and comprehensive opinion, rejected each of these arguments. After reviewing the record and hearing the arguments of counsel, we agree with the district court's analysis. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the habeas petition substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Duffy in his memorandum opinion dated July 26, 1990. 761 F.Supp. 993 (S.D.N.Y.1990).