BEN HITCHCOCK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF ARIZONA, FRANK A. EYMAN, WARDEN, ET AL., DEFENDANT-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 publicity preceding and during the homicide trial did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
The petitioner, a state prisoner, claimed that publicity surrounding his homicide trial prejudiced him. The publicity consisted of newspaper stories d…
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 Prejudicial Publicity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Hitchcock, an Arizona prisoner, appeals from the denial of this petition for a writ of habeas corpus following an ev-identiary hearing.1
The only contention that merits discussion is Hitchcock’s claim that publicity preceding and during his homicide trial prejudiced him. The publicity consisted of a few newspaper stories. The pretrial accounts gave some of Hitchcock’s personal history and his and certain eyewitnesses’ versions of the homicide. The newspaper stories published during the trial simply reported the course of the trial. We have examined the clippings, and we find nothing in them that supports his assertion that their publication deprived him of a fair trial. (See, e. g., Evans v. Arizona (9th Cir. 1969) 410 F. 2d 1122; Gawne v. United States (9th Cir. 1969) 409 F. 2d 1399, cert. denied (1970) 397 U.S. 943, 90 S.Ct. 956, 25 L.Ed.2d 123; Loraine v. United States (9th Cir.) 396 F. 2d 335, cert. denied (1968) 393 U.S. 933, 89 S.Ct. 292, 21 L.Ed.2d 270.)
The judgment is affirmed.
. In 1958 petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. His conviction was affirmed by the Arizona Supreme Court in State v. Hitchcock (1960) 87 Ariz. 277, 350 P. 2d 681.
After exhausting his state court remedies, petitioner filed a petition for federal habeas relief on June 13, 1968. This court reversed a denial of the petition and remanded to give petitioner an opportunity to amend his petition in Hitchcock v. Eyman (9th Cir. 1969) 418 F. 2d 1245.
The present petition comprises a consolidation of the first petition and a second filed during petitioner’s appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gawne v. United States, 409 F.2d 1399 (9th Cir. 1969)
- Gawne v. United States, 397 U.S. 943 (U.S. 1970)
- Ignacio v. People of the Territory of Guam, 397 U.S. 943 (U.S. 1970)
- Huckaby v. United States, 393 U.S. 933 (U.S. 1968)
- Hart v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 393 U.S. 933 (U.S. 1968)
- Loraine v. United States, 396 F.2d 335 (9th Cir. 1968)
- Wilmer W. Evans v. State OF Ariz., 410 F.2d 1122 (9th Cir. 1969)
- Hitchcock v. Eyman, 418 F.2d 1245 (9th Cir. 1969)