Court Opinion

ID: 9452431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:40:37.794348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:12.971324
License: Public Domain

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
In addition to what is contained in the foregoing opinion, in which I concur, the present appeal is indicative of the persistence of appellant Glass, following as it does his direct appeal from his conviction after a trial by jury, resulting in an affirmance, 277 F.2d 566. His next resort was to §§ 1651(a) and 2255 of 28 U.S.C.A. This court denied him relief on an appeal from an order of the district court denying such relief. 328 F.2d 754 (1964).
It is apparent that all issues now being raised by petitioner have heretofore been disposed of either on direct appeal or in a § 2255 proceeding.
That the government did not call special employee Luther McDaniel as its witness was not error. Failure to do so was a calculated risk of government counsel. A conviction was procured without McDaniel’s testimony. If petitioner or his counsel wanted the benefit of any knowledge that McDaniel had pertaining to the case against him, the law provided methods for procuring a bill of particulars, a deposition, or a subpoena. Neither petitioner nor his counsel took advantage of any of these methods.