UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
August 17, 1948
The opinion of the court was delivered by: FOLLMER
Petitioner, after indictment, was duly tried and convicted. He now alleges in a second application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in this district that an involuntary confession was introduced in evidence before the Grand Jury, and that the indictment so obtained failed to show venue in the District of New Jersey.
The confession, hereinafter referred to, was voluntary and the indictment
for conspiracy clearly alleges venue within the District of New Jersey with overt acts committed therein. The mere fact that petitioner's participation in the conspiracy was outside of that district, even if true, does not affect the court's jurisdiction of the petitioner or the offense.
Neither is the question of venue a matter for habeas corpus, but a question of fact for the determination of the trial court.
The allegation that the indictment was predicated upon an involuntary confession was raised in a previous habeas corpus proceeding by this petitioner and it was there pointed out that this question could not be so raised.
The confession was not used against him at the trial nor would it be material here, had it been so used.
Moreover, the testimony at the hearing is convincing that the statement was entirely voluntary.
The petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and the Rule to Show Cause discharged.