Legal Opinion

Halleck v. Koloski

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1965No. 39596PublishedCited by 48 opinions

1Per curiam

In an action in habeas corpus, the burden of proof is upon the petitioner to establish his right to release. Yarbrough v. Maxwell, Warden, 174 Ohio St. 287.

The only evidence before the Court of Appeals to support his contention was the uncorroborated statement of the appel-lee that the court had failed to inform him of his right to counsel. On the other hand, the journal entry recited that petitioner had been informed of his rights and waived them, and the trial judge, in an affidavit, stated that it was the rule and undeviating practice in that court to explain an accused’s rights to him.

In…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Fair v. MaxwellOhio Supreme Court · 1965

3Cited by48 opinions

  1. Chari v. VoreOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Chari v. VoreOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Davis v. BanksOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  4. Smith v. LeisOhio Court of Appeals · 2006
  5. State v. StarrattNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1967

43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API