ALAN DEAN HUDSON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the contents of a tape recording were admissible and that a new claim not raised in the district court could not be considered on appeal.
Hudson was convicted of counterfeiting laws and appealed the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. His motion raised several grounds, but only …
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Perjured Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Hudson appeals the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.1
In 1967 Hudson was convicted of violating the counterfeiting laws. 18 U.S. C. § 472. He unsuccessfully appealed the conviction, Hudson v. United States, 387 F. 2d 331 (5th Cir.1967), cert. denied 393 U.S. 876, 89 S.Ct. 172, 21 L.Ed.2d 147 (1968), then brought this action. His motion raised three grounds: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) prosecutorial use of perjured testimony, and (3) introduction into evidence, over objection, of the contents of a tape recording made of a telephone conversation between Hudson and Davis, a business associate. Only the third ground is urged on appeal, plus a new claim that admission of testimony containing statements made by alleged coconspirators violated Hudson’s rights to due process and confrontation.
Hudson contends that the contents of the tape recording were inadmissible because obtained in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605, and that the introduction of such evidence violated rights secured him by the Fourth Amendment. But Davis consented to the government’s recording of the conversation, so that there was no “interception” prohibited by 47 U.S.C. § 605, the contents of the recording were not illegally seized, and their introduction into evidence did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Koran v. United States, 408 F. 2d 1321 (5th Cir.1969); Harris v. United States, 400 F. 2d 264 (5th Cir.1968); Dryden v. United States, 391 F. 2d 214 (5th Cir. 1968); Mach v. United States, 352 F. 2d 85 (5th Cir.1965).
The new claim was not raised in the District Court thus may not be considered on appeal. Dryden v. United States, 403 F. 2d 1008, 1009 (5th Cir. 1968).
Affirmed.
. Pursuant ot our Rule 18 this ease is decided without oral argument.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Gorel, 622 F.2d 100 (5th Cir. 1979)
Authorities Cited
- Hudson v. United States, 387 F.2d 331 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Dryden v. United States, 403 F.2d 1008 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Harris v. United States, 400 F.2d 264 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Mortimer Norman Koran v. United States, 408 F.2d 1321 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Dryden v. United States, 391 F.2d 214 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Hudson v. United States, 393 U.S. 876 (U.S. 1968)
- Smith v. Florida, 393 U.S. 876 (U.S. 1968)
- Mach v. United States, 352 F.2d 85 (5th Cir. 1965)