FRANK LEE, JR., PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
DR. GEORGE J. BETO, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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 district court did not err in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner, a state prisoner, sought a writ of habeas corpus, alleging his trial was fundamentally unfair due to witness intimidation and racial preju…
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 Racial Prejudice In Jury Selection cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Frank Lee, Jr., a Texas state prisoner, appeals from an order of the district court denying his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
This is Lee’s second appeal in this case. On his first appeal we affirmed the judgment of the district court in part but remanded for further findings “related to ‘the fundamental fairness of Petitioner’s original trial in Limestone County; the evidence as to intimidation of Petitioner’s witnesses and as to racial prejudice in general in Limestone County at the time of the trial.’ ” See Lee v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1970, 429 F. 2d 524, 525.
On remand the district court carefully re-read the transcripts of Lee’s trial and state habeas corpus hearing and concluded that “the petitioner was not denied due process of law at his trial due to racial prejudice or any lack of fundamental fairness.” Specifically, the district court noted that following a full eviden- tiary hearing the state habeas court found that
(1) there was no evidence that any of the petitioner’s witnesses were kept from testifying;
(2) there was no evidence that any members of the Negro race was systematically excluded either from the Grand Jury and/or the Petit Jury;
(3) there was no evidence that any particular rumor or feeling in the locality in any way affected the trial.
The district court concluded that these factual findings were adequately supported by the state court record and denied Lee’s petition.
Our examination of the whole record in the ease has revealed no clear error in the district court’s findings of fact and no error in its conclusions of law. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.P.; Milton v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1970, 428 F. 2d 463, 464; Perkins v. Henderson, 5 Cir. 1969, 418 F. 2d 441, 442.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Perkins v. Henderson, 418 F.2d 441 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Milton v. Louie L. Wainwright, 428 F.2d 463 (5th Cir. 1970)
- LEE v. Beto, 429 F.2d 524 (5th Cir. 1970)