Jensen v. Pollard

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to enforce prior conditional writ of habeas corpus, where: (1) Ct. of Appeals granted defendant’s initial habeas petition and directed that defendant either be released, or that govt. initiate re-trial proceedings on charge of murder within 90 days; (2) state initiated re-trial proceedings within 90 days; and (3) state court subsequently concluded that out-of-court statements at issue in first habeas petition could be introduced at second trial and ultimately granted govt. motion to reinstate defendant’s original conviction. Ct. of Appeals rejected defendant’s argument that state did not comply with terms of conditional writ since: (1) govt. had actually initiated re-trial proceedings within applicable time frame; and (2) conditional writ did not require new trial without use of disputed statements. Also, defendant can file new habeas petition once his direct appeal from trial court’s ruling in second proceeding regarding use of said statements has been resolved.