JOHN PATRICK MAGGARD, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 trial court's decision to allow the prosecution to reopen its case did not deny the appellant a fair and impartial trial.
A state prisoner appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition. The sole issue was whether the trial court erred by directing the prosecution to r…
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 Reopening A Case cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
John Patrick Maggard, a Florida state prisoner, appeals from the District Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
The sole issue presented upon this appeal is whether the appellant was denied a fair and impartial trial because his trial court twice directed the prosecution to reopen its case, subsequent to defense motions for a directed verdict.1
It is well established that a trial court may permit the reopening of a case in order that omitted evidence may be presented. Considerable latitude in discretion is vested in the trial court in such matters. Hale v. United States, 5th Cir., 1969, 410 F. 2d 147, cert. den. 396 U.S. 902, 90 S.Ct. 216, 24 L.Ed.2d 179; Rhyne v. United States, 7th Cir., 1969, 407 F. 2d 657; Morgan v. United States, 9th Cir., 1967, 380 F. 2d 686, cert. den. 1968, 390 U.S. 962, 88 S.Ct. 1064, 19 L.Ed.2d 1160; also Massey v. United States, 10th Cir., 1966, 358 F. 2d 782, cert. den. 385 U.S. 878, 87 S.Ct. 159, 17 L.Ed.2d 105. Moreover, the record reveals that the trial judge’s suggestions were made outside the presence of the jury so that no possible prejudice could have resulted from the suggestions.
We have carefully examined the record in this case, including appellant’s trial transcript. We agree with the district court’s holding that the trial court’s actions did not substantially prejudice any federally-protected right of the appellant. Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Appellant has also raised two other contentions in his brief which is before this Court. Since these grounds were not presented to the district court, they will not be adjudicated upon this appeal. Walker v. Wainwright, 5th Cir., 1969, 409 F. 2d 1311.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Walker, 772 F.2d 1172 (5th Cir. 1985)
-
United States v. McDONOUGH, 603 F.2d 19 (7th Cir. 1979)
-
United States v. Molinares, 700 F.2d 647 (11th Cir. 1983)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Hale v. United States, 410 F.2d 147 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Blount v. United Fed'n of Postal Clerks, AFL-CIO, 396 U.S. 902 (U.S. 1969)
- Hale v. United States, 396 U.S. 902 (U.S. 1969)
- Massey v. United States, 358 F.2d 782 (10th Cir. 1966)
- Little v. United States, 385 U.S. 878 (U.S. 1966)
- Cota v. Arizona, 385 U.S. 878 (U.S. 1966)
- Morgan v. United States, 380 F.2d 686 (9th Cir. 1967)
- Rhyne v. United States, 407 F.2d 657 (7th Cir. 1969)
- Brown v. United States, 390 U.S. 962 (U.S. 1968)