The court found that Ackerman failed to exhaust his state remedies regarding his claim of denial of due process from widespread pretrial publicity. While he raised the issue of pretrial publicity with the trial court, he did not submit this issue to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on appeal or mention it in his petition to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. As a result, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment.
The court found that Ackerman failed to exhaust his state remedies regarding his claim of denial of due process from widespread pretrial publicity. While he raised the issue of pretrial publicity with the trial court, he did not submit this issue to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on appeal or mention it in his petition to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. As a result, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment.
The court found that Ackerman failed to exhaust his state remedies regarding his claim of denial of due process from widespread pretrial publicity. While he raised the issue of pretrial publicity with the trial court, he did not submit this issue to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on appeal or mention it in his petition to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. As a result, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment.
Alfred J. ACKERMAN, Appellant, v. Frank C. JOHNSTON, Warden, Western State Penitentiary. No. 11875.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued June 21, 1956. Decided August 7, 1956. Rehearing Denied September 13, 1956.
Marjorie Hanson Matson, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Wendell G. Freeland, Asst. Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., Samuel Strauss, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Edward C. Boyle, Dist. Atty. of Allegheny County, S. Donald Wiley, Asst. Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee. Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, GOODRICH, Circuit Judge, and VAN DUSEN, District Judge. PER CURIAM.
The record demonstrates that the relator-appellant, Ackerman, has failed to
exhaust his State remedies on the issue of denial of due process by reason of widespread pretrial publicity which is alleged to have created an atmosphere of hysteria and prejudice. It is conceded by Ackerman that the issue of such pervasive and unfavorable publicity was not submitted to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Commonwealth v. Ackerman, 176 Pa.Super. 80, 106 A.2d 886. See Rule 28. It is further conceded that that issue was not even referred to in the petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Careful consideration has been given to the arguments raised by appellant under II and IV of his brief.
Accordingly, the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.
United States of America Ex Rel. Earl Brogan v. David N. Myers, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford, Pennsylvania, 370 F.2d 331, 3rd Cir. (1967)
United States of America Ex Rel. Albert H. Walls v. David N. Myers, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania, 353 F.2d 210, 3rd Cir. (1965)
United States of America Ex Rel. Francis O'HallOran v. David N. Myers, Superintendent State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania, 330 F.2d 352, 3rd Cir. (1964)
United States of America Ex Rel. James Jesse Wright v. William J. Banmiller, Warden, State Correctional Institution, Pliladelphia, Pennsylvania, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 292 F.2d 271, 3rd Cir. (1961)
United States v. Harry Greenberg, Dominic Mattia, Nick Pannarella, Ernest Paul, Alfred Sireci, and Hirschel Weisbord, AKA Hirschel Washbord, Alfred Sireci, 419 F.2d 808, 3rd Cir. (1969)
United States of America Ex Rel. William McKenna v. David N. Myers, Superintendent State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania, 342 F.2d 998, 3rd Cir. (1965)
United States of America Ex Rel. James Whiting v. Alfred T. Rundle, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania, 389 F.2d 47, 3rd Cir. (1968)