Ben Hitchcock v. Frank A. Eyman, as Superintendent of Arizona State Penitentiary

Good Law
418 F.2d 1245·1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9977
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 20, 196923814_1California329 words

Opinion

Opinion

Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona for the County of Maricopa. See State v. Hitchcock, 87 Ariz. 277 , 350 P.2d 681 (1960). After exhausting state remedies, petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging that he was denied due process (1) by pretrial publicity which precluded him from receiving a fair trial before an impartial jury; and (2) by the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to petitioner.

The respondent filed an answer pursuant to the order of .the district court. The district court denied the petition for habeas corpus without further proceedings.

With respect to the first ground, the district court concluded that the petition was “devoid of facts in support of its bald legal conclusion.” With respect to the second ground, the district court concluded that the petition was insufficient because it failed ,to allege facts showing (1) the materiality of some of the evidence, and (2) the manner in which the prosecution had suppressed other evidence — by failing to disclose its existence,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.