Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • John Nikolas Hyde v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 435 F.2d 710, 4th Cir. (1970)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    Filed: 1970-12-23 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 435 F.2d 710 Docket: 13430

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Filed: 1970-12-23 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 435 F.2d 710 Docket: 13430

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views2 pages

    John Nikolas Hyde v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 435 F.2d 710, 4th Cir. (1970)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Filed: 1970-12-23 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 435 F.2d 710 Docket: 13430

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    435 F.

    2d 710

    John Nikolas HYDE, Appellant,


    v.
    WARDEN, MARYLAND PENITENTIARY, Appellee.
    No. 13430.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Argued Dec. 10, 1970.
    Decided Dec. 23, 1970.

    Alan J. Karlin, Baltimore, Md. (Courtassigned counsel), for appellant.


    Alfred J. O'Ferrall, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Maryland (Francis B. Burch,
    Atty. Gen., of Maryland, on the brief), for appellee.
    Before SOBELOFF, WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    John Nikolas Hyde appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus
    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. He was convicted of murder in the first degree on
    May 16, 1961, and is presently serving a sentence of life imprisonment in the
    Maryland Penitentiary. The sole issue before us is whether certain
    incriminating oral statements and an unsigned handwritten confession should
    have been excluded from evidence at trial because unlawfully coerced during a
    period of police interrogation subsequent to Hyde's arrest.

    Because petitioner's conviction predates the Supreme Court's decisions in


    Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), and
    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the
    test for determining the voluntariness of his statements is the 'totality of the
    circumstances.' Hyde has received a comprehensive and fair hearing on this
    issue in state postconviction proceedings which resulted in a finding that the
    admissions were in fact voluntary. The dismissal of the application for state
    postconviction relief was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Hyde
    v. State, 240 Md. 661, 215 A.2d 145 (1965).

    In full compliance with the dictates of Townsend v. Sain, 374 U.S. 293, 83
    S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), the District Court, reviewing the state court
    record, found that Hyde had received a full and fair hearing on his claim in the
    state courts, and further found that the state hearing transcript amply supported
    the conclusion that Hyde's statements were voluntarily made. The
    circumstances of the police interrogation were fully set forth in the opinions of
    the District Court and the Maryland state courts and need not be reiterated here.
    After careful consideration of these circumstances, we conclude that the
    decision of the District Court should not be disturbed. Accordingly, the
    judgment is

    Affirmed.

    You might also like