DANIEL ODELL MCDONALD, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DR. GEORGE J. BETO, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

5th Cir. | 1969-01-13
No. 26646
Before TUTTLE and GEWIN, Circuit Judges, and PITTMAN, District Judge.
405 F.2d 884 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1969) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the prisoner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief because his inculpatory statements were admissible under Escobedo.


Facts & Procedural History

A prisoner serving a murder sentence contended that his inculpatory statements should not have been admitted at trial because they were inadmissible u…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner of the State of Texas, who is serving a sentence for the murder of his grandmother. The trial occurred after Escobedo but prior to Miranda,.

The appellant’s sole contention is that his inculpatory statements should not have been admitted in evidence at his trial because they were inadmissible under Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964). This contention was rejected by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in a comprehensive opinion. McDonald v. State, Tex.Cr.App.1965, 395 S.W. 2d 48.

The United States District Court denied the petition for habeas corpus on the basis of the state record and judicial opinion, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as amended in 1966. The appellant has not alleged controverting facts; but he contends that he is entitled to relief because the officer who took his statements failed to advise him of his right to counsel or to remain silent, prior thereto. The state court held that the statements were free and voluntary and distinguished the case from Escobedo on the facts that the appellant had not asked for a lawyer and no lawyer was attempting to contact him.

Careful examination of the trial transcript, in the light of the applicable law, has convinced us that the district court did not err in denying habeas corpus relief.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw