Kohl v. Lehlback

Citations

• 160 U.S. 293
• 16 S. Ct. 304
• 40 L. Ed. 432
• 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2366

Syllabus

<p>In a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, verified by the petitioner’s oath as required by Rev. Stat. § 764, facts duly alleged may be taken to be true, unless denied by the return or controlled by other evidence; but no allegation of fact in the petition can be assumed to be admitted, unless distinct and unambiguous.</p> <p>General allegations in such a petition that the petitioner is detained in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the particular State, and is held without due process of law, are averments of conclusions of law, and not of matters of fact.</p> <p>It is for the state court, having jurisdiction of the offence charged in a proceeding before it, and of the accused, to determine whether the indictment sufficiently charges the offence of murder in the first degree. Bergemann v. Backer, 157 U. S. 655, affirmed and applied.</p> <p>Independently of constitutional or statutory provisions allowing it, an appeal to a higher court of a State-from a judgment of conviction in a lower court is not a matter of absolute right; and as it may be accorded upon such terms as the State thinks proper, the refusal to grant a writ of error or to stay an execution does not warrant a Federal court to interfere in the prisoner’s behalf by writ of habeas corpus.</p> <p>When one of the jury by which a person accused of murder is convicted is an alien, and the accused takes no exception to his acting as a juror and makes no challenge, and on trial is convicted and sentenced, it is for the state court to determine whether the verdict shall be set aside, since as the disqualification of alienage is only cause of challenge, which may be waived, either voluntarily, or through negligence, or through want of knowledge.</p>