Case Name: Frank T. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1975-03-07
Citations: 509 F.2d 121
Docket Number: No. 74-3198
Parties: Frank T. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 509
Pages: 121–122

Head Matter:
Frank T. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 74-3198
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 7, 1975.
Rehearing Denied March 27, 1975.
Frank T. Johnson, pro se.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., Barbara B. Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., John Baker, Joseph B. Tosterud, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., New Orleans, La., for respondent-appellee.
Before BELL, SIMPSON and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:.
Appellant, a male Louisiana state prisoner, sought federal habeas relief on-the contention that the Louisiana statute governing service by females on its juries was unconstitutional. His contention has now been sustained, Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690, (1975), but to no avail to: him since the ruling has been given pro-, spective application only. Daniel v. Louisiana, 420 U.S. 31, 95 S.Ct. 704, 42 L.Ed.2d 790, (1975). In addition, there is no - merit in the further contention of ineffective counsel. i
We cannot pass on the additional assignment of error that there was no evidence to sustain the verdict of guilty. Cf. Thompson v. Louisville, 1960, 362 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654; Garner v. Louisiana, 1961, 368 U.S. 157, 82 S.Ct. 248, 7 L.Ed.2d 207. The trial' transcript is not a part of the record before us. Whether it was ever before the district court is problematical. This argument must be considered in the district court on the state trial record or on a record made in an evidentiary hearing in the district court.
Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part with direction.