of military law and there is therefore no basis for any contention of double jeopardy
Petitioner has alleged inadequacy of defense counsel. The burden of proving such allegation is upon him. The mere fact that his present counsel upon an analysis in retrospect of the cold record, believes he would either have asked or refrained from asking some question, or would have made some objection differently, does not sustain such burden of proof.
Under Military Law a commissioned officer appointed as counsel is considered competent counsel,
however, in the instant case, the evidence shows that certainly the assistant defense counsel was an attorney with the experience of twenty-two years practice,
and an examination of the trial record shows that the accused was ably and vigorously defended
The allegation 'That the petitioner was not advised of his rights pursuant to the provisions of the 24th Article of War (10 U.S.C.A. § 1495) at the time he was first questioned by Captain Winfield,' needs little comment. The question of the admissibility in evidence of any statements made by accused at that time would not be a proper subject of habeas corpus.
The record however, shows that in the interview by Captain Winfield accused denied having been out, but on the contrary stated ' * * * that he had been playing poker in the tent, * * * .'
He admits that he made no admission of guilt to Captain Winfield.
At the trial no statement or confession of any kind by the accused was introduced into evidence, and Captain Winfield testified only to the fact that accused was in his command.
Captain Winfield was not the impartial investigator under Article of War 70
Complaint is made that an identification line-up, wherein petitioner was identified, was not conducted fairly. In view of the fact that this was not a part of the investigation under Article of War 70, nor involved in the trial, and accused having been identified, not only by the victim, but by another witness, and having himself admitted at the trial that he was the person with the victim,
There would be not merit in the contention even were it a proper subject of habeas corpus.
Petitioner alleges 'That the investigation under the 70th Article of War was neither thorough nor impartial and further said investigation was not competently made.' Petitioner claims that Captain Wilkins, the investigating officer, never interviewed him.
Aside from the question of the extent to which inquiry in habeas corpus may be had concerning the preliminary investigation as relating to due process, the record shows Major Wilkins duly appointed as investigating officer
and that he made a complete report showing a thorough and careful investigation, with the accused interviewed, warned of his rights, shown various exhibits and the testimony of interviewed witnesses, given an opportunity to interview witnesses, and to make any statements, which he declined to do. The record shows a comprehensive investigation conscientiously performed. Such a record cannot be collaterally attacked in habeas corpus.
However, after hearing the testimony of the Investigating Officer, Major Wilkins,
there could be no doubt that a most thorough investigation was had, and the accused's rights most scrupulously protected.
The remaining contention is that there were errors in the trial, with improper and incompetent testimony admitted, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not the function of habeas corpus to determine whether incompetent evidence was admitted and considered,
or to review possible errors of law in the trial,
or from the cold record to reweigh the testimony and pass upon the guilt or innocence of the accused.
In this proceeding, however, no such errors in admission of evidence or rulings of law have been shown, counsel relying on the general proposition that a wrong decision had been reached on disputed facts. A careful examination of the trial record shows ample facts to sustain the verdict. The victim, 22 years of age, was shown by the uncontradicted testimony of two doctors to have been a virgin prior to the assault, her mouth was bruised and two teeth loosened, her clothing was torn and she had bruises on the thigh and lower leg. It would be sheer presumption for this Court, on the cold record, to attempt to re-evaluate the testimony in the face of such facts. Certainly in almost every trial there will be found some factual detail which may be construed or misconstrued by the defense as evidence of innocence. This merely creates the disputed issue of fact which it is the province of the trial court to resolve,
with the benefit of observation of the reactions of witnesses under examination, in a determination of guilt or innocence.
A charge of rape calls for no different rule. As was stated by Judge Wyche,
'I can think of no reason why the court should favor ravishers in applying exceptions to the general rule, especially since many rapists probably escape without even a trial, because their victims are unwilling to subject themselves to the terrible ordeal of a public trial, carrying with it humiliation, embarrassment and notoriety.
The case was ably considered by a Board of Review,
the record of the trial was legally sufficient to support the finding of guilty and no errors injuriously affecting the substantial rights of the petitioner appear. We find nothing which might be construed as a denial of due process of law.
The rule to show cause is dismissed and the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.