One is that his court-assigned counsel did not follow his requests and directions in preparation and trial, which led to his conviction; the other that the District Attorney "held certain evidence" which "would have been contradictory" to testimony offered by the prosecution; and that "fraud and perjury was used to secure" his conviction. These generalities do not warrant a trial on this writ and are factually insufficient to require re-examination of the case which has heretofore...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
