Legal Opinion

Hayden v. Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided December 12, 1963No. [App. No. 40, September Term, 1963.]PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

In his amended petition for post conviction relief from his imprisonment for armed robbery, the petitioner asserted: (1) that his home was forcibly entered and searched; (2) that the prosecuting witness failed to positively identify him; (3) that the nolle prosequi by the State of a count in the indictment was proof of innocence; and (4) that he had been denied a speedy trial. At the post conviction hearing, the petitioner further asserted (5) that he was indicted on hearsay evidence and (6) that he was dissatisfied with the services of trial counsel for failure to object to hearsay evidence…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Edwards v. Warden of Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1963
  2. Davis v. Warden of Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1963

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. HaydenSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Bennie Joe Hayden v. Warden, Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1966
  3. Myers v. Director of Patuxent InstitutionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1963
  4. Boston v. Warden of Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1963
  5. Bennie Joe Hayden v. Warden, Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1966

1 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