WORTENDYKE, District Judge:
This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., for review of petitioner's conviction in the Passaic County Court (of New Jersey) on March 31, 1961, of first degree murder. He is presently serving a life sentence thereon in New Jersey State Prison.
Petitioner appealed from the conviction to the New Jersey Supreme Court which affirmed, State v. Wade, 1963, 40 N.J. 27, 190 A.2d 657. The petitioner here urges, in support of his application for the writ, the same grounds upon which he sought reversal in the New Jersey Supreme Court, and no others.
In accordance with the directive expressed in Brown v. Allen, 1953, 344 U.S. 443, 457, 463-464, 73 S. Ct. 397, 97 L. Ed. 469, and Townsend v. Sain, 1963, 372 U.S. 293, 319, 83 S. Ct. 745, 9 L. Ed. 2d 770, I have carefully examined and conscientiously considered the transcript of the trial testimony (which, including the voir dire examination of jurors, summation of counsel and court's charge, aggregates 4,956 pages) insofar as it relates to the three grounds presently urged by the petitioner and already decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court. The transcript reveals that, with respect to the three grounds of the present petition, the trial judge and jury resolved the material facts, pursuant to a fair hearing supported by the record, and no newly-discovered evidence has been presented in regard to these grounds. Consequently, there is no need for, nor would it be appropriate to grant, a hearing before this Court for the present petitioner. Townsend v. Sain, supra, pp. 312-318, 83 S. Ct. pp. 756-760.
With respect to petitioner's first ground, namely that his constitutional rights were infringed by the trial court's admission in evidence of an alleged confession obtained from him in violation of the principles of due process, the evidence in the case has been accurately and comprehensively summarized by Mr. Justice Schettino of the New Jersey Supreme Court in that Court's opinion, with which I independently concur, on petitioner's appeal.
In upholding the admission of Wade's confession by the trial court, the New Jersey Court said:
"Thus, the issue of voluntariness is reduced to a question of whether the demerol injection deprived Wade 'of a rational intellect and a free will.'" [Citing Blackburn v. State of Alabama, 1960, 361 U.S. 199, 208, 80 S. Ct. 274, 4 L. Ed. 2d 242.
"A confession made by a person while under the influence of drugs is not per se involuntary. State v. Wise, [19 N.J. 59, 115 A.2d 62 (1955)], 19 N.J. at pp. 85-92, [115 A.2d 62 at pp. 75-79. * * *"