the intervention of this Court. As late as the State's appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court, petitioner could have applied to the Supreme Court for the correction of the trial record under N.J.R.R. 1:6-6, but he failed to do so. This Court's intervention is not warranted. See Jordan v. Steiner, D.C.Md.1960, 184 F.Supp. 432, 435.
The inaccuracy of the appellation given to the witness Brady has already been sufficiently dealt with in this Court's prior opinion.
Any variance in the testimony of a witness given upon the trial of the abortion indictment with that given by the same witness on the trial of the conspiracy indictment, affords no basis for inference that the fairness of the former trial was impaired by perjury known to the prosecution. Soulia v. O'Brien, 1 Cir., 1951, 188 F.2d 233, certiorari denied 341 U.S. 928, 71 S. Ct. 794, 95 L. Ed. 1359; Cobb v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 1948, 167 F.2d 888, certiorari denied 335 U.S. 832, 69 S. Ct. 19, 93 L. Ed. 385.
The preserved uterus was used on the trial of the abortion case by a medical witness for the State for the purpose of illustrating and demonstrating his testimony. It was in Court and available for petitioner's use had his attorney seen fit to request its possession. Moreover, it was exhibited to the jury during the demonstration for which it was employed.
This Court is without jurisdiction to review the decision of a State appellate court upon a writ of habeas corpus. Minnec v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 1941, 123 F.2d 444, certiorari denied 315 U.S. 809, 62 S. Ct. 797, 86 L. Ed. 1207; Wooten v. Bomar, 6 Cir., 1959, 267 F.2d 900; United States v. Von Der Heide, D.C.D.C.1959, 169 F.Supp. 560.
The offense of which petitioner was convicted was committed in Bergen County, New Jersey, but the victim of the offense died in Passaic County, where her 'body was found' and where the case was tried. There appears to have been full compliance with the requirements of New Jersey Revised Rule 3:6-1(d).
I find neither in the original petition for writ of habeas corpus, nor in his most recent supplement thereto, any basis for inference that the petitioner has suffered a violation of his rights to due process, nor for the appointment of counsel here in his behalf, nor for affording to petitioner a hearing upon his allegations.
For the reasons aforesaid, therefore, the order of February 24, 1961 denying the petition of William G. Thompson for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby reaffirmed, and the supplement to said petition is denied and dismissed.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.