habeas corpus hearing in Maryland

2018She testified at the habeas corpus hearing that there was something about his face 'I don't think I could ever forget.' " Id. at 200-01 , 93 S.Ct. 375 .

2018She testified at the habeas corpus hearing that there was something about his face 'I don't think I could ever forget.' " Id. at 200-01 , 93 S.Ct. 375 .

2010One of the few relevant cases, Pollock v. Patuxent Institution Board of Review, 374 Md. 463 , 823 A.2d 626 (2003), involved an inmate who filed a habeas challenge to the Patuxent Institution Board of Review's revocation and subsequent non-renewal of his parole because of a positive urinalysis.

2010One of the few relevant cases, Pollock v. Patuxent Institution Board of Review, 374 Md. 463 , 823 A.2d 626 (2003), involved an inmate who filed a habeas challenge to the Patuxent Institution Board of Review's revocation and subsequent non-renewal of his parole because of a positive urinalysis.

2009The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed. 448 F.2d 91 (1971).

1993Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468-69 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1025 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938) (footnote omitted).

1993Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468-69 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1025 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938) (footnote omitted).

1987Whether a habeas corpus hearing is the appropriate forum in which to raise the issue that delay prejudiced a defendant’s ability to challenge the validity of a detainer under the I.A.D. has not been decided in this State, although that defense is available in cases proceeding under the Extradition Act. *53 When a person challenges transfer to another state pursuant to the Extradition Act by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the only grounds for relief he or she may raise at the pre-transfer hearing are “(a) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the pet

1987Whether a habeas corpus hearing is the appropriate forum in which to raise the issue that delay prejudiced a defendant’s ability to challenge the validity of a detainer under the I.A.D. has not been decided in this State, although that defense is available in cases proceeding under the Extradition Act. *53 When a person challenges transfer to another state pursuant to the Extradition Act by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the only grounds for relief he or she may raise at the pre-transfer hearing are “(a) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the pet

1987Konigsberg v. Vincent, 526 F.2d 131 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 937 , 96 S.Ct. 2652 , 49 L.Ed.2d 388 (1976) involved a habeas corpus challenge to confinement under a New York conviction for extortion.

1987Konigsberg v. Vincent, 526 F.2d 131 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 937 , 96 S.Ct. 2652 , 49 L.Ed.2d 388 (1976) involved a habeas corpus challenge to confinement under a New York conviction for extortion.

1987Konigsberg v. Vincent, 526 F.2d 131 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 937 , 96 S.Ct. 2652 , 49 L.Ed.2d 388 (1976) involved a habeas corpus challenge to confinement under a New York conviction for extortion.

1987Konigsberg v. Vincent, 526 F.2d 131 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 937 , 96 S.Ct. 2652 , 49 L.Ed.2d 388 (1976) involved a habeas corpus challenge to confinement under a New York conviction for extortion.

1987Konigsberg v. Vincent, 526 F.2d 131 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 937 , 96 S.Ct. 2652 , 49 L.Ed.2d 388 (1976) involved a habeas corpus challenge to confinement under a New York conviction for extortion.

1987Konigsberg v. Vincent, 526 F.2d 131 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 937 , 96 S.Ct. 2652 , 49 L.Ed.2d 388 (1976) involved a habeas corpus challenge to confinement under a New York conviction for extortion.

1987Subsection (d) provides that “[njothing contained in [§ 616E] shall be construed to deprive any prisoner of any right which he may have to contest the legality of his delivery ... but such delivery may not be opposed or denied on the ground that the executive authority of the sending state has not affirmatively consented to or ordered such delivery.” The Supreme Court held, based on § 616E(d), that since an inmate sought under the Extradition Act would be entitled to a habeas corpus hearing, the asylum state could not deny that same right to a prisoner requested for temporary custody pursuant

1987Subsection (d) provides that “[njothing contained in [§ 616E] shall be construed to deprive any prisoner of any right which he may have to contest the legality of his delivery ... but such delivery may not be opposed or denied on the ground that the executive authority of the sending state has not affirmatively consented to or ordered such delivery.” The Supreme Court held, based on § 616E(d), that since an inmate sought under the Extradition Act would be entitled to a habeas corpus hearing, the asylum state could not deny that same right to a prisoner requested for temporary custody pursuant

1984Although we did not say so explicitly, we appear to have recognized that principle implicitly in Lewis v. Warden, 16 Md.App. 339, 341-342 , 296 A.2d 428 (1972).

1984Although we did not say so explicitly, we appear to have recognized that principle implicitly in Lewis v. Warden, 16 Md.App. 339, 341-342 , 296 A.2d 428 (1972).

1981And lately, in Bryson v. Warden, Baltimore City Jail, supra, our own Court of Appeals has stated, at 287 Md. 470 : "Our cases and those of our intermediate appellate court make clear that a habeas corpus hearing upon the petition of one against whom a warrant of rendition has been issued is in no way intended to test the guilt of the petitioner or even whether there is probable cause to believe he committed the alleged crime.

1972In considering an indictment for perjury alleged to have been committed in a habeas corpus hearing before a circuit judge the Court of Appeals said in Deckard v. State, 38 Md. 186 (1873) at page 201: “It is not doubted that false testimony ma *318 terial to the issue, wilfully given under oath on such an inquiry, would be perjury at common law, as being given in a judicial proceeding, or course of justice, and is therefore within the first class of cases which the Code, Art. 30, sec. 155, declares shall be deemed perjury.” Blackstone in his Commentaries, Vol. 4, page 137, considers perjury as