Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

William J. Bowie v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, California, 20846 (1967)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Number: 20846 Visitors: 6
Filed: Feb. 15, 1967
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 373 F.2d 514 William J. BOWIE, Appellant, v. Lawrence E. WILSON, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, California, Appellee. No. 20846. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Feb. 15, 1967. Treuhaft & Walker and Doris Brin Walker, Oakland, Cal., Ralph Johansen, Berkeley, Cal., for appellant. Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of Cal., Albert W. Harris, Jr., Edward P. O'Brien, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Before CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge, JONES, Judge of the Court
More

373 F.2d 514

William J. BOWIE, Appellant,
v.
Lawrence E. WILSON, Warden, California State Prison, San
Quentin, California, Appellee.

No. 20846.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 15, 1967.

Treuhaft & Walker and Doris Brin Walker, Oakland, Cal., Ralph Johansen, Berkeley, Cal., for appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of Cal., Albert W. Harris, Jr., Edward P. O'Brien, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge, JONES, Judge of the Court of Claims, and HAMLEY, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

The order of the district court denying a writ of habeas corpus is vacated. The district court will hold the petition in abeyance for a reasonable time to permit the appellant to seek relief in the appropriate state courts on the following three points:

2

1. Whether he was deprived of his right of confrontation of witnesses as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

3

2. Whether his incriminating statements were involuntary.

4

3. Whether he should have been warned as to his right not to testify as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

5

Also, if California procedure permits it now, appellant should there present or re-present his contention that he did not voluntarily and intelligently waive counsel. This court is concerned about this point and has not disposed of it.

6

This decision is not a final decision on any point on the merits.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer