Latham v. Crouse (330 F.2d 865, 1964)

BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.

Appellants Latham and York, herein referred to as petitioners, are before us for the second time on consolidated appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief. They were convicted in Kansas of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The judgments were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Kansas in State v. Latham, 190 Kan. 411, 375 P.2d 788, and certiorari was denied, 373 U.S. 919, 83 S.Ct. 1310, 10 L.Ed.2d 418. Thereafter federal habeas corpus was denied after a hearing at which petitioners were represented by counsel. We affirmed, Latham v. Crouse, 10 Cir., 320 F.2d 120, and certiorari was denied, 375 U.S. 959, 84 S.Ct. 449, 11 L.Ed.2d 317. Each then petitioned again for federal habeas corpus. A hearing was again held with counsel appearing for petitioners, evidence was taken, findings of fact and conclusions of law were made, and relief was denied. These appeals followed.

The on|y point raised is that the petitioners did not have a fair trial because of allefed community prejudice said to Pf vent ,the ^paneling of a fair jury, The Prejudice is asserted to have arisen because of the televising m the area of an interview with the petitioners shortly after their arrest.

The murder was committed in Wallace County, Kansas, on June 9, 1961. The petitioners were arrested the next day in Utah. Shortly thereafter they confessed in the circumstances outlined in our prior opinion. Utah officers permitted a television tape, consisting of a motion pictu/e fil™ with a S