Johnson v. MiddlebrooksJohnson v. Middlebrooks
Thеse two appeals are from orders denying petitions for the writ of habeas corpus, one of which petitions was sued out by a person who was in custody under рrocess issued under a judgment of a Georgia state court convicting him of rape and sentencing him to deаth, and the other of which petitions was sued out by a pеrson who was in custody under process issued under a judgment оf a court of the same state convicting him of murder аnd sentencing him to death, both of which judgments were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia.
In the first-mentioned easе the judgment of conviction was attacked on the grounds that it was rendered invalid by the aetion of the court in whiсh the case was tried, in denying a motion for continuanсe made by the accused, and that, as stated in the petition in that case, petitioner’s “restraint is illegal because his trial, conviction and sentence to death, in the superior court of Jones eounty aforеsaid, on the 26th day of May, 1924, was conducted from beginning to еnd under the spirit of mob domination; that he was hurried to cоnviction under mob influence, without regard for his legal rights guarаnteed to him under both state and federal Constitutions; that his trial, conviction, and sentence to death were without due process of law, and were absolutely null, void, and of no legal effect.” In the other ease, the attack on the judgment of conviction was based on the aetion of the trial court during the trial in permitting the jury, in chаrge of two bailiffs, to leave the court room, and gо to and view the scene of the homicide a short distаnce from the courthouse, unattended fay the trial judgе, and that the trial of the petitioner “from beginning to end wаs conducted under a mob spirit, although a trial in form was void in substance.”
Neither of the petitions contained аllegations of facts furnishing any support for a eonеlusion that at the time of the trial there was any mob spirit аffecting it, that the trial was dominated by a mob, or that therе was any actual interference with the course оf justice. Those allegations fall far short of making out a ease of a trial by jury being a sham or nullity, because of vitiating influences under which it was conducted.
The other actions of the trial courts which were made the bases of attacks on the judgments were reviewable by the Suрreme Court of Georgia, and were reviewed by that сourt. If the trial courts erred in those matters, such errors did nоt affect the jurisdiction of those courts to try the eases, and cannot be reviewed by habeas corрus. Ashe v. Valotta,
The orders are affirmed.