Criminal Law — Practice — Habeas corpus — Allegations of petitioner — Refusal of separate trial on various bills of indictment — Suppression of facts by trial judge — Emphasizing Commonwealth's case and slighting defendant's case — Misunderstanding as to failure to file motion for a new trial — Overruling demurrer to evidence — Refusal to allow argument for arrest of judgment.
In a habeas corpus proceeding, in which it appeared that the petitioner, who was tried on nine bills of indictment charging burglary and robbery, alleged that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying a separate trial on the various bills of indictment, that the trial judge "suppressed facts" and "entered the case as an advocate for the Commonwealth", that petitioner had "understood" that his counsel was going to make a motion for a new trial, that the trial judge erred in overruling petitioner's demurrer to the evidence, that the charge of the court below unduly emphasized the Commonwealth's evidence and slighted defendant's evidence, and that the court below erred in refusing to allow defendant to argue for an arrest of judgment (a motion for which was never filed); and that the court below, holding that petitioner's contentions were without merit and that habeas corpus was not a proper remedy, dismissed the petition; it was Held that the order of the court below should be affirmed.
Submitted September 11, 1962.
OPINION PER CURIAM, November 15, 1962:
The order of the court below dismissing petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge FORREST of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, as reported in 28 Pa. D. C. 2d 604.