Writ of Certiorari Denied June 16, 1947. See 67 S.Ct. 1744.
Appellant seeks his release by habeas corpus from the Minnesota state prison, where he is under conviction and sentence by a court of that State for the offense of sodomy. The District Court denied his application for a writ.
The only substantial federal question raised by the application is appellant's charge that he was convicted without due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, in that he was not given a public trial.
Two and a half years later, appellant sought to raise the question, with some others, by an application to the Minnesota Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied. He then filed a similar application in the District Court of Washington County, Minnesota, where a writ was issued, but the writ was discharged on a hearing and appellant was remanded to custody. He appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, where appellee filed a motion to quash, under Minnesota practice, to test the sufficiency of the allegations of the application to justify any issuance of the writ. The Minnesota Supreme Court sustained the motion to quash, State ex rel. Baker v. Utecht, 221 Minn. 145, 21 N.W.2d 328, and appellant then petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was denied, Baker v. Utecht, 327 U.S. 810, 66 S.Ct. 971, 90 L.Ed. 1034.
The opinion of the Minnesota Supreme Court considered appellant's contention on its legal merits and held, 21 N.W.2d at page 332, that, if there was in fact a denial of the right of public trial, it was not in the circumstances of the situation
* * * By contrast, however, the denial of the right to a public trial [in a part of the proceeding], where the accused enjoys the benefit of competent counsel at every stage of the proceeding, does not ipso facto involve a violation of the due process clause and operate as a jurisdictional bar to a valid judgment of conviction. In the latter case, the court is complete and the accused enjoys ample corrective processes through appeal."
We have previously indicated that the United States Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court on appellant's petition for certiorari. In the situation presented, no reason appears why the District Court on this application for habeas corpus should assume jurisdiction to re-examine the question thus previously adjudicated. The Supreme Court has several times said that, where the state courts have considered and adjudicated the merits of an alleged violation of federal constitutional rights and the United States Supreme Court has either reviewed or declined to review the state court's decision, a federal court will not ordinarily re-examine the questions so adjudicated, on an application for habeas corpus. Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114, 118, 64 S.Ct. 448, 450, 88 L.Ed. 572; Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U.S. 224, 230-232, 44 S.Ct. 519, 521-522, 68 L.Ed. 989.
The District Court therefore did not err in refusing to issue a writ for the purpose of re-examining whether there was a denial of a public trial under such circumstances as to make the conviction invalid in a collateral attack.
The order dismissing the application is affirmed.