T36 Per curiam opinion from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals about Jack Ruby
Object number1994.002.0011.0002
Date05/18/1966
ClassificationsDocuments
ObjectDocument
Credit LineDallas County District Clerk Collection/The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza
MediumPaper
Dimensions14 × 8 1/2 in. (35.6 × 21.6 cm)
DescriptionPer curiam opinion from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in the 1966 Jack Ruby habeas corpus proceeding.
The appellate court affirmed Judge Louis T. Holland's decision not to grant Ruby his freedom after his 1966 writ of habeas corpus appeal. The court observed that there was still controversy about Joe Tonahill's role as a Ruby defense lawyer. The court urged Judge Holland to empanel a jury and begin a sanity hearing to assess Ruby's mental state as soon as possible.
Document is typed on two yellowing pages of onionskin paper. The second page has an embossed notary seal.
Text at the top of the first page:
"Ex Parte Jack Ruby
No. 39,613
Appeal from Dallas County
Per Curiam
Opinion [underlined]
This is a habeas corpus proceeding."
Curatorial CommentaryThe Museum recorded an oral history with defense attorney Joe Tonahill in 1996. He passed away in 2001. - Stephen Fagin, Curator
To empanel a jury is to select and swear in jurors from a jury pool. - Jan Masterson, Collections Cataloguer
A per curiam (Latin for "by the court") decision is a court opinion issued in the name of the Court rather than specific judges. These types of opinions typically deal with issues which the issuing court views as relatively non-controversial. This per curiam opinion was affirmed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which means the appellate court affirmed that the decision of Dallas County District Court No. 3 to remand Jack Ruby to the custody of the Sheriff of Dallas County was correct. - Jan Masterson, Collections Cataloguer
01/20/1964 - 01/21/1964
02/12/1964 - 02/14/1964
