Legal Opinion

Barnett v. United States

District Court, E.D. Tennessee

Decided August 12, 1970No. Civ. A. No. 2541Published

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NEESE, District Judge.

The movant Mr. John C. Barnett, a prisoner in custody under sentence of this Court, claims the right to be released on the ground,* inter alia, that such sentence is subject to collateral attack, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, because the sole basis of his conviction in criminal action no. 6947, infra (fn.), was perjured testimony, which was knowingly used by the prosecuting authorities in order to obtain such conviction. Mooney v. Holohan (1935), 294 U.S. 103, 110, 55 S.Ct. 340, 79 L.Ed. 791, 793. This issue is purely legal in character, so no evidentiary hearing…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Mooney v. HolohanSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Edward Barker v. The State of OhioCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1964
  3. United States v. SpadaforaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1952
  4. William Anderson v. United States of America, Harold Moffett v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1969
  5. Erwin M. Enzor v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1961

3 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