Jackson v. Caldwell

Decision Date13 June 1972
Docket NumberNo. 71-2129.,71-2129.
Citation461 F.2d 682
PartiesWilburn JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellee, v. E. B. CALDWELL, Warden, Georgia State Prison, Reidsville, Georgia, Respondent-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Dorothy T. Beasley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellant.

Robert G. Fierer, Garland & Garland, Edward T. M. Garland, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner-appellee.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and BELL and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.

SIMPSON, Circuit Judge:

The State of Georgia appeals from the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief to Wilburn Jackson, an inmate of the Georgia State Prison, Reidsville, Georgia, where he is confined under a 1959 life sentence for the murder of his wife. In granting the writ, the district court held: (1) the state judge who presided at Jackson's 1959 murder trial should have ordered, sua sponte, that a hearing be held concerning Jackson's competency to stand trial; and (2) in this habeas proceeding Georgia failed to establish that Jackson was competent to stand trial on or near his trial date, July 30, 1959. Review of the record leads us to conclude that the court below was in error in its first holding. We reverse the judgment of the district court on that basis.

I. FACTS

In about mid-May, 1959, the petitioner-appellee, Wilburn Jackson, a black, thirty-two year old rural resident of near Temple, Haralson County, Georgia, following an argument with his wife, Louise Jackson, beat her severely with a claw hammer and a rifle butt. She died later the same day. Jackson buried his wife's body in a field together with linens stained with her blood. A few days thereafter he ploughed the field where the body was and sowed it to field peas. Almost three weeks later, Jackson took a bottle of deodorizer and sprinkled its contents on the ground over his wife's body to prevent odor. The body was discovered and reported to authorities June 5, 1959. He gave Sheriff Allen of Haralson County a long statement that day. The statement, largely self-inculpatory was coherent and calm in tone, if not in content.

The grand jury of Haralson County indicated Jackson for murder in the first degree, a capital offense. Two local attorneys, Robert A. Edwards and E. B. Jones, were appointed to represent him. His jury trial for murder began July 30, 1959, in the Haralson Superior Court before the Honorable W. A. Foster, Jr. The principal defense interposed in Jackson's behalf was that of temporary insanity at the time the alleged murder took place. The jury found Jackson guilty as charged with a recommendation of mercy. Because of the recommendation the trial judge imposed a life sentence. Following the imposition of sentence, Jackson's counsel moved for a new trial. This motion was withdrawn the next day. According to counsel, Jackson's avoidance of the death penalty constituted a victory which should not be jeopardized in a second trial. No appeal was taken from the judgment and sentence.

It should be emphasized that never during the murder trial did counsel for Jackson claim that the accused was incompetent to stand trial. All the testimony introduced by the defense bearing upon Jackson's emotional and mental health was in support of a claim that Jackson was temporarily insane when he killed his wife. Because that testimony is crucially significant to our decision, in the light of Pate v. Robinson, 1966, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815, and this Court's en banc ruling in Lee v. State of Alabama, 5 Cir. 1967, 386 F.2d 97, cert. denied 1969, 395 U.S. 927, 89 S.Ct. 1787, 23 L.Ed.2d 246, we set out pertinent excerpts verbatim.

Mr. William Baskin, Jackson's brother-in-law called as a State witness in the murder trial, testified as follows on cross-examination:

"Q Based on what you know from your observation of this boy over the years, based on your knowledge of his actions and so forth, do you think he is sane or insane?
A I really don\'t hardly know how to answer that. I know he didn\'t act like average people.
Q Repeat your answer to the last question.
THE COURT: Ask the question again.
"Q Based on your experience with Wilburn Jackson and your observation of him over the years, his actions, do you think he is sane or insane?
A Well, my answer was that I know he doesn\'t act normal, as normal people.
Q Can you testify whether he is sane or insane, do you have an opinion whether he is sane or insane?
A Yes, sir.
Q What is your opinion?
A I would say he is insane."

On re-direct examination Mr. Baskin testified:

"Q From your observation of Wilburn Jackson over a period of years, tell this jury what your opinion is as to whether or not he knows right from wrong.
A Yes, he knows right from wrong until at times when those spells come on him, then he doesn\'t seem to regard himself or anyone else, just plainly speaking.
Q Those spells, what do they appear to be, fits of temper or what?
A That\'s right.
Q From your observation is he a person with a violent temper?
A At times.
Q What kind of actions were there when you have seen him manifest that temper?
A Well, probably he would be talking to his father or something, and something goes wrong, he is all to pieces, and the next time he would be just as fine as he could be.
Q Tell us whether or not he just manifested those fits of temper when what was said was something he didn\'t like or what was done was something that didn\'t suit him.
A Well, there wasn\'t too many of these spells when I was around, but I would just hear them talk, probably I would be in my room and wouldn\'t be paying any attention and I would hear him blow up all over.
Q When he would blow up what would he do, argue?
A Yes, arguing and walking."

Sheriff L. P. Allen, a witness for the state, testified on direct examination:

"Q Sheriff Allen, how long have you known the defendant, Wilburn Jackson?
A I don\'t know just exactly, several years.
Q Did you know him when he ran a cafe down there?
A Yes, sir.
Q Had you seen him on many occasions?
A Yes, sir.
Q Between that time and the time that this occurred?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you talk to him on those occasions?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you observe his conversation and actions on those occasions?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long were you with him and when did you first see him after the body of Louise Jackson was found?
A I don\'t know exactly, it must have been around 10 o\'clock, it was some time that morning.
Q And how long were you with him that day? Just tell us the number of occasions.
A I was with him a short time at that time, then later on in the day I came back out here to the jail and then I was with him until at least 10 o\'clock that night.
Q During those times was that when the written statement that you read this morning was taken?
A Yes, and afterwards, I was with him several hours after that.
Q Did you go to his father\'s house when he finally signed the statement?
A I was present when he signed it.
Q During all of that time, and during the time that you knew him prior to this, did you form any opinion as to whether he was sane or insane?
A He was sane.
Q Did you form an opinion, or is there no doubt in your mind that he knew right from wrong?
A No, sir.
Q In your opinion did he positively know right from wrong?
A I am sure he did."

On cross-examination Sheriff Allen testified:

"Q You haven\'t been around this man a great deal, have you?
A I have been around him several times, E.B.
Q Mr. Allen, if someone wouldn\'t eat food until they had someone to taste it, would that be out of the ordinary, in your opinion, every time I sat down to the table I wouldn\'t eat until it was tasted?
A That would be a little out of the ordinary for me.
Q If someone continuously lived in his past instead of looking at the present and the future, would you consider that out of the ordinary?
A I guess it would be.
Q If someone flies into what we call a rage, and started beating on the walls with his hand and first without any apparent reason, would that be out of the ordinary?
A You want my opinion?
Q Yes.
A It would be just mean.
Q Even though he had no reason to do it?
A That\'s right."

The following testimony was given by Sheriff Allen on re-direct examination:

"Q Sheriff, in arriving at your conclusion that he knew right from wrong, was there any statement made to you after the giving of this written statement by Wilburn Jackson?
A Yes, when we left the house we came back by Temple and stopped there a while and went from there to Carrollton to the undertaker\'s, and Wilburn told me he was proud it was over with, proud that we found it out, he hadn\'t slept three hours at a time, he was glad it was over with.
Q He seemed to be relieved?
A Yes, he seemed more alive after he signed the statement and all. We went to the undertaking parlor at Carrollton and then back to the jail."

The principal witness at the trial on the question of Jackson's mental condition was Dr. Thomas Leland, who testified on direct examination as follows:

"Q You are Dr. Thomas Leland?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where do you live, Doctor?
A Atlanta, Georgia.
Q Are you an M.D.?
A Yes.
Q Are you also what we commonly call a psychiatrist?
A Yes.
Q Doctor, will you tell the jury where you received your medical and psychiatric training?
A I graduated from Emory University School of Medicine in 1953. After my intership I spent two years in psychiatry at St. Elizabeth Hospital in Washington, D. C., and one year after that at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. I spent two years in psychiatry at the Naval Hospital in Corpus Christi, Texas, and entered private practice in psychiatry in July of this year, in Atlanta, Georgia.
Q What is the name of the place in which you are now practicing?
A I am now practicing at the Atlanta Psychiatric Clinic on 2905 Peachtree Street.
Q Doctor, were you called in the case of The State v
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Thompson v. Johnson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 3 Aprile 1998
    ...no Pate violation occurred." Reese, 600 F.2d at 1092 (citing Grissom v. Wainwright, 494 F.2d 30, 32 (5th Cir.1974); Jackson v. Caldwell, 461 F.2d 682, 693-94 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 991, 93 S.Ct. 334, 34 L.Ed.2d 257 (1972)). In this instance, the only facts known to the court wer......
  • Hance v. Zant
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 24 Gennaio 1983
    ...commitment to a mental hospital for more than 18 months, was diagnosed as still suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.5 In Jackson v. Caldwell, 461 F.2d 682 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 991, 93 S.Ct. 334, 34 L.Ed.2d 257 (1972), no Pate violation was found although the defendant was me......
  • People v. Harris
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 8 Luglio 1985
    ...cert. denied 444 U.S. 983, 100 S.Ct. 487, 62 L.Ed.2d 410, supra; Grissom v. Wainwright, 5th Cir., 494 F.2d 30, 32; Jackson v. Caldwell, 5th Cir., 461 F.2d 682, 693-694, cert. denied 409 U.S. 991, 93 S.Ct. 334, 34 L.Ed.2d In brief, we find no merit in this claim of defendant and that branch ......
  • Cherokee Nation v. State of Oklahoma
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 27 Giugno 1972
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT