Court Opinion

ID: 9637055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:55:04.717979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:52.655100
License: Public Domain

HANEY, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the holding of the majority regarding disqualification of the trial judge. I likewise concur in the result of the holding regarding the alleged unreasonable search and seizure but on a different ground.
The allegations bearing on the latter question are in part:
“ * * * that your petitioner’s home was searched and a large amount of private papers taken all without petitioner’s knowledge as petitioner was confined in jail, that the said papers obtained by said search was presented into evidence against petitioner, that said search was instigated, as later found out, by your petitioner, the day after his arrest, and without a search warrant.
“Your petitioner strenuously objected to said documents being entered into evidence, for the reason that the documents had been obtained by an illegal search of your petitioner’s home, without a warrant of any kind * * *
There is nothing to show whether the officers who seized the papers were federal, state or municipal officers.
Even though the papers might have been seized by state officials in violation of the state constitution, the papers are admissible in a federal trial, and no violation of the federal constitution is shown. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 398, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652. Because of the presumption of correctness attending the trial court’s determination, and the fact that a judgment imports verity, I think we should presume that the alleged illegal seizure was made by other than federal officers. Having reached that conclusion, it is apparent that the petition fails to state any grounds for release, and Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 61 S.Ct. 574, 85 L.Ed. 830, does not require a hearing because there was no issue of fact. .