Legal Opinion
Earley v. United States
District Court, C.D. California
Decided December 16, 1966No. Civ. No. 66-1479-CCPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING MOTION UNDER SECTION 2255, TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE
CARR, District Judge.
Petitioner having filed a motion pursuant to Section 2255 of Title 28, United States Code, claims (1) that his guilty plea was improperly coerced and is void because the United States Attorney “reneged” on his promise of leniency, and (2) that he was denied counsel following his arrest and statements subsequently obtained from him “were used by the Government to deprive petitioner of a fair trial, fair plea, and fair sentence.”
The Assistant United States Attorney who was assigned to the case has filed an…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Escobedo v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- MacHibroda v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Von Moltke v. GilliesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Leopold Joseph Doran v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden, San Quentin PrisonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1966
- John Joseph Putnam v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1964
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Jesse Coy Kimbrough v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
- Stephen v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Texas · 1969
- Jesse Coy Kimbrough v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969