Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

354 F.2d 940

Docket No. 22069.

Mallonee v. Lanier

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Jan. 10, 1966.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1966-01-10

2 counsel of record

Relies on Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1966-01-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 1981

11 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

130196619701980decided

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 →

¶1Eugene E. Mallonee, pro se.

¶2Sam R. Wilson, Houston, Tex., Lonny F. Zwiener, Austin, Tex., Asst. Attys. Gen. of Texas, Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Stanton Stone, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Howard M. Fender, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for appellee.

¶3Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, COLEMAN, Circuit Judge, and HUNTER, District Judge.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5Mallonee is confined in the Texas State Penitentiary serving a sentence of life imprisonment resulting from his conviction of the offense of rape. He brought this habeas corpus proceeding alleging that he had been deprived of his liberty without due process of law. This is an appeal from a judgment discharging the writ and remanding petitioner to the custody of the respondent warden.

¶6The principal assignment of error is the finding of the district judge that Mallonee was not denied a fair trial, simply because he was brought to the state court room in handcuffs, which were removed promptly upon arrival there. There was no showing that appellant was observed in handcuffs by any member of the jury. At the most, we have a showing of a possibility of prejudice. This is not enough. Prejudice must be established “not as a matter of speculation but as a demonstrable reality.” 1

¶7A careful examination of the record compels a conclusion that all grounds urged by appellant as a basis for reversal lack merit. The judgment of the district court is

¶8Affirmed.

/354/f2d/940 · .json · Public domain