Druryv.Cox

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitMar 7, 1972
457 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1972)

Cases citing this document

How cited

  • Theriault v. Lamb

    In Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, at pages 764-765 (9th Cir. 1972), the Court stated: "The district court…

  • Roberts v. Decarlo

    Petitioner has not made any showing of extraordinary circumstances indicating that he will suffer irreparable…

156 Citing cases

Summaries written by judges

Summaries

  • declining to entertain a petition claiming that the state lacked probable cause to bind a defendant over for trial when the defendant had not yet been convicted in state court

    Summary of this case from Phillips v. Vasquez

  • declining to entertain a petition claiming that the state lacked probable cause to bind a defendant over for trial when proceedings against defendant were ongoing in state court

    Summary of this case from Manizak v. Michigan

No. 71-2759.

March 7, 1972.

Howard A. Kashman, Pima County Public Defender, Tucson, Ariz., for petitioner-appellant.

Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., Rose Silver, Pima County Atty., John L. Augustine, Deputy County Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

Before CHAMBERS, KOELSCH and CHOY, Circuit Judges.


The district court considered the issue in this case to be whether the evidence at a preliminary hearing before an Arizona State Magistrate was sufficient to establish probable cause to bind Drury over for trial on an open charge of murder, degree unspecified. The Arizona Supreme Court held the evidence sufficient. Drury v. Burr, 107 Ariz. 124, 483 P.2d 539 (1971). The district court, after an independent review of the record, agreed and denied Drury's petition for habeas corpus without a hearing. Drury appeals, claiming that his detention for trial amounted to a denial of due process because of lack of probable cause.

We affirm on different grounds. Our reading of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669, convinces us that only in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts. Apparent finality of one issue is not enough.

The order denying relief is affirmed.

The mandate will issue now.