Submission, Responses, and Final Orders
Submission, Responses, and Final Orders
Attorney Austin Shute delivered attorney Magnarella’s petition to the Federal District Court in Kansas. Judge Arthur J. Stanley had retired, and his long-time colleague Judge Earl E. O’Connor had taken over Pete’s case. He accepted the petition, directed the U.S. Attorney to file a response, and allowed O’Neal’s counsel to file a reply. A U.S. Assistant Attorney responded to the petition by arguing, without legal support, that the writ of coram nobis was all but extinct and recommended that the judge invoke the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. The presiding judge refused to examine the merits of the petition. He invoked the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, saying that O’Neal could have litigated his legal issues on appeal in 1970. Because O’Neal had fled the jurisdiction of the court back in 1970, the judge said he was not entitled to any court resources.
Keywords: Paul Magnarella, Judge Earl E. O’Connor, writ of coram nobis, fugitive disentitlement doctrine
Florida Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .
