The opinion of the court was delivered by: WORTENDYKE
The indicated petitioner is presently in the custody of the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Prison Farm, in the course of serving sentences imposed upon him by the Morris County Court on November 12, 1954, after conviction by a jury upon an indictment charging armed robbery and assault with intent to rob, committed on January 22, 1954, within the jurisdiction of the sentencing court. A copy of the indictment is annexed to petitioner's brief.
Under date of April 25, 1960 petitioner mailed to the Honorable William F. Smith, Chief Judge of this Court, addressed to him at Trenton, New Jersey, certain documents designated respectively (1) 'Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for assignment of counsel in forma pauperis,' (2) 'Verified petition for writ of habeas corpus,' and (3) 'Brief of defendant-petitioner.' These documents were, in due course, referred to the writer of this opinion, in conformity with the practice followed in this multi-judge court. On May 10, 1960 the petitioner was advised that it would be necessary for him to pay to the Clerk of this Court a filing fee of $ 5 as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). In the course of subsequent correspondence, the petitioner, in a letter to this Court, questioned the amount of money reported by the Superintendent of the prison standing to petitioner's credit, which was sufficient for compliance with the statutory filing fee requirement. The documents which petitioner sought leave to file were retained by the writer of this opinion pending compliance with the payment directive above mentioned. The filing fee required was received by the Clerk on July 5, 1960.
The petitioner predicates his assertion that his present imprisonment is illegal upon the following contentions:
(1) He was denied a fair trial in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by the trial court's restriction of cross-examination of a 'self-confessed' accomplice called as a witness for the State.
(2) He was deprived for access to an appellate court because of inability to pay filing fees and cost of transcript, and was illegally denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(3) There was unreasonable delay in bringing petitioner to trial.
(4) His assigned counsel was incompetent and failed to fulfill his professional obligations to petitioner.
(5) He was subjected to police brutality during his pretrial imprisonment.
(6) His case was prejudiced by subsequent admissions of perjury by State witnesses.
In his brief in support of his present petition for a writ of habeas corpus, petitioner cites fifty-five State and Federal judicial decisions, eleven text writers, the Revised Statutes of Illinois, the 39th Clause of Magna Carta, numerous provisions of the respective Constitutions of the United States of America and of the State of New Jersey, and Revised Rules of the New Jersey Courts, certain Statutes of New Jersey, and the works of seven authors on legal subjects. The brief consists of approximately forty-three typewritten pages, to which is annexed an appendix comprising an additional twenty-three typewritten pages.
It is apparent from an examination of the pending petition, the record of prior proceedings disclosed in the appendix annexed thereto, and the appendix filed by the State on petitioner's appeal to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey from the order of the Morris County (New Jersey) Court denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus, that the petitioner is seeking from this Court substantially the same relief which he has been unsuccessful in obtaining through the Courts of New Jersey and the Supreme Court of the United States. Because of this threshold situation, it becomes appropriate, if not essential, for this Court to determine whether and to what extent it may review the facts which have been found and adjudicated by the Courts of New Jersey.
In the case of Brown v. Allen, 1953, 344 U.S. 443, at page 458, 73 S. Ct. 397, at page 407, 97 L. Ed. 469, it is stated:
'So far as weight to be given the proceedings in the courts of the state is concerned, a United States district court, with its familiarity with state practice is in a favorable position to recognize adequate state grounds in denials of relief by state courts without opinion. A fortiori, where the state action was based on an adequate state ground, no further examination is ...