Bigrow v. Hiatt

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued March 16, 1948.

Decided July 2, 1948.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1948-07-02

1 counsel of record

Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1565

Relies on Bigrow v. Hiatt

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1948-07-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 1963

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Major Thayer Chapman, of Washington, D.C., for the Government.

¶2Before BIGGS, O’CONNELL and KA-LODNER, Circuit Judges.

¶3 *993PER CURIAM.

¶4A careful examination of the record in this case convinces us that the appellant, Bigrow, now a military prisoner in the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, received a fair trial by court-martial for unlawfully killing a brother soldier by shooting him in the neck with a sub-machine gun, a violation of Article of War 93, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1565, and for misbehavior before the enemy in that he was drunk on duty in the presence of the enemy, a violation of Article of War 75, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1547. The offenses occurred in the vicinity of Vannes, France, on or about August 9, 1944. In nowise was the appellant denied due process of law. See also the opinion of the court below, D.C., 70 F.Supp. 826. The order of the court below will be affirmed.