United States Ex Rel. Loring J. Whiteside, Relator-appellant, v. J. Edward Slavin and George R. Tiernan, Respondents-appellees, 309 F.2d 322 (2d Cir. 1962)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - 309 F.2d 322 (2d Cir. 1962) Argued October 15, 1962
Decided October 24, 1962

Loring J. Whiteside, pro se.

George R. Tiernan, New Haven, Conn., for respondents-appellees.

Before WATERMAN, HAYS and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.


This is an appeal from a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. After a full hearing Judge Anderson filed adequate findings and conclusions of law supporting his denial of the writ for failure to exhaust state remedies. We affirm.

Petitioner-appellant on March 24, 1959 was convicted of four counts of a twenty-three count indictment for criminal libel after a trial before a jury in the Court of Common Pleas of the State of Connecticut. This conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Errors, State v. Whiteside, 148 Conn. 208, 169 A.2d 260 (1961); reargument was denied and the U. S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.

Petitioner seeks relief in the federal courts on two major assertions. He claims that the Court of Common Pleas violated the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by denying his motion for a bill of particulars, and that alleged prejudice against him by the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut deprived him of due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The courts of Connecticut have not passed upon the merits of either of these asserted rights. Habeas corpus in the federal courts is presently unavailable to petitioner, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254; Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 73 S. Ct. 397, 97 L. Ed. 469; Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S. Ct. 587, 94 L. Ed. 761; United States ex rel. Williams v. LaVallee, 276 F.2d 645 (2 Cir. 1960).

We affirm.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.