EX PARTE SAMUEL JACKSON; EX PARTE PERCY ARTHUR WHISTLER; AND PATTERSON

v.

SANFORD, WARDEN

Citator

Cited By

• Wade v. Mayo, 334 U.S. 672 (U.S. 1948)
  …91-692, infra, I comment upon the delicate nature of the federal habeas corpus jurisdiction over state convictions. Those observations are relevant here. See pp. 694-695, infra. An example of such a letter appears in the record in Ex parte Hanley, 322 U.S. 708: “Your petition for writ of habeas corpus has been received and examined. From such examination, it appears that, if filed, your petition would have to be dismissed for the reason that it does not appear therefrom that you have exhausted your remed…
• Maynard v. Meachum, 545 F.2d 273 (1st Cir. 1976)
  …actors, in our view, might influence this determination. First, it cannot be disputed that an effective waiver must be the product of a free and' meaningful choice. See Moore v. Michigan, supra, 355 U.S. at 164, 78 S.Ct. 191; Von Moltke v. Gillies, 322 U.S. 708, 729, 68 S.Ct. 316, 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948) (separate opinion of Frankfurter, J.). This does not mean that the decision must be entirely unconstrained. A criminal defendant may be asked, in the interest of orderly procedures, to choose between waiver an…