U.S. ex rel. Stanbridge v. Zelker

• Decision Date: 15 April 1975
• Docket Number: 710,D,Nos. 709,s. 709
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America ex rel. William STANBRIDGE, Petitioner-Appellee-Appellant, v. John R. ZELKER, Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, RussellOswald, Commissioner of Corrections, Respondents-Appellants-Appellees. ockets 73-2504, 75-2009.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Page 45

514 F.2d 45

UNITED STATES of America ex rel. William STANBRIDGE Petitioner-Appellee-Appellant, v. John R. ZELKER, Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, RussellOswald, Commissioner of Corrections, Respondents-Appellants-Appellees.

Nos. 709, 710, Dockets 73-2504, 75-2009.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Feb. 21, 1975.

Decided April 15, 1975.

William Epstein, New York City (William J. Gallagher, The Legal Aid Society, Federal Defender Services Unit, New York City, on the brief), for petitioner-appellee-appellant.

Ralph L. McMurry, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., on the brief, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for respondents-appellants-appellees.

Before ANDERSON, MULLIGAN and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges.

VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granting in part and denying in part petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus. We have concluded that the district judge erred in his partial grant of the writ. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of his order while affirming his decision in all other respects.

On March 22, 1961, as petitioner William Stanbridge and two other youths, Robert Moll and John Closter, were cruising about Manhasset, New York in petitioner's "hotrod" ¹, they decided to rob a Food Fair Supermarket. Leaving the auto on a side street adjacent to the shopping center in which the supermarket was located, petitioner and his companions donned masks and entered the rear of the store. Petitioner carried a toy gun taken from the trunk of his car, and Moll brought along a sawed-off shotgun. ² While Stanbridge contends that he was unaware of the presence of the shotgun, it is undisputed that such weapon was in Moll's possession during the entire course of events here described.

The facts surrounding the robbery itself are not at issue. Suffice it to say that the petitioner and his partners threatened and tied up several of the Food Fair employees and departed, carrying paper bags filled with money.

As they were leaving the supermarket, Moll, Closter and petitioner were surprised by Patrolman Joseph Coote of the Nassau County Police Department, who, gun in hand, ordered the three to halt. Petitioner and Closter dropped their bags of money in surrender. Moll, however, fired his shotgun, killing Officer Coote. The three then fled.

Within a matter of hours, a team of Nassau County detectives began searching for the three young men, following the lead provided by several witnesses who had described the unusual auto. This search led initially to the home of a teenage boy who owned a somewhat similar vehicle. He advised the detectives that petitioner had a car fitting their description and accompanied them to the Stanbridge home.

Petitioner was taken into custody about 11:30 P.M. and placed in the detectives' automobile. In response to their inquiries, petitioner directed the detectives to a private garage several blocks away where his green hotrod was parked. The car was searched, and bloodstains were found on the rear seat. ³ Subsequent thereto, petitioner and his automobile were taken to the Roslyn, New York police station.

Petitioner, an eighteen year old youth, was interrogated by detectives for about seven and a half hours following his arrival at police headquarters (12:30 A.M. until 8:00 A.M.). He contends that during this interval he was deprived of sleep, food and advice of counsel. ⁴ There is, however, no evidence that petitioner requested any of the three. Indeed, he at no time indicated a desire that the interrogation stop.

Sometime after 8:00 A.M. petitioner confessed to his participation in the robbery. Moll and Closter, apprehended soon after Stanbridge, also confessed.

Following indictment of the three on charges of felony and common-law murder, as well as robbery, grand larceny and assault, a trial was held in Supreme Court, Nassau County, before Justice Frank A. Gulotta. ⁵ All three confessions were introduced into evidence although none of the defendants testified. On January 6, 1962, a verdict of guilty was returned against petitioner on charges of first degree manslaughter, ⁶ first degree grand larceny, two counts of first degree assault and two counts of second degree assault.

On appeal to the Appellate Division, the case was remanded for a hearing, pursuant to Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964), on the voluntariness of the confessions. ⁷ On remand, a Huntley hearing was conducted, and all confessions were found to be voluntary. The case returned to the Appellate Division, which then affirmed. ⁸ The New York Court of Appeals likewise affirmed. ⁹

The United States Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1969). ¹⁰ Upon reconsideration, the New York Court of Appeals again affirmed, ¹¹ and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. ¹²

Petitioner next sought habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York before the Hon. Jacob Mishler, Chief Judge.

The petition submitted by Stanbridge to Judge Mishler raised four issues:

1. Was petitioner's right of confrontation violated by the introduction into evidence of the confession of Moll, a non-testifying co-defendant?

2. Was petitioner's own confession involuntary, and therefore inadmissible?

3. Was the introduction into evidence of photographs of petitioner's automobile improper in light of the warrantless search and seizure of the vehicle?

4. Was the arrest of petitioner without probable cause, thereby rendering inadmissible the confession as the fruit of an illegal arrest?

Judge Mishler saw no merit in petitioner's final three assertions. With this conclusion we agree. On the confrontation issue the trial judge decided that the granting of a writ of habeas corpus was mandated. ¹³ We disagree.

In Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), the Supreme Court held that the defendant's inability to cross-examine a non-testifying codefendant about his implicating confession violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. The scope of the Bruton decision has been considered by our court on a number of occasions, and we have concluded that error of constitutional dimensions does not inevitably occur if the questioned confession is admitted under proper instructions from the court concerning its limited use and purpose. ¹⁴ The likelihood of error must be measured against the prejudicial consequences of the failure of the jury to follow the court's instructions, i. e., the "devastating" effect of the incriminations contained in the codefendant's admissions. (See Bruton, at 136, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476). Where the confession adds nothing to what is otherwise clearly and properly in the case, it can have little "devastating" effect.

This situation would clearly obtain were the defendants to voluntarily sign identical confessions. However, since confessions are rarely maternal twins, the court must look to their substance to see whether they interlock sufficiently on vital points to indicate a common genesis. If they do, "devastating" effects do not follow from their admission.

This "interlocking confession" doctrine does not require absolute identity of statements. United States ex rel. Ortiz v. Fritz, 476 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1973). It is sufficient if the two confessions are substantially the same and consistent on the major elements of the crime involved. United States ex rel. Duff v. Zelker, 452 F.2d 1009 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 932, 92 S.Ct. 1807, 32 L.Ed.2d 134 (1972). In Duff, the petitioner confessed to riding with his codefendants to the scene of the crime. However, he contended that he, thereafter, walked away from the liquor store where the crime was to take place. His codefendant, on the other hand, stated in his confession that Duff "walked toward the liquor store". This Court did not find such a difference to be significant where the confessions were to "essentially" the same facts:

"The statements (of codefendant) were similar to Duff's own confessions . . . which placed him at the scene with a fair implication of knowing participation. When the defendant's 'confession interlocks with and supports the confession of' the co-defendant, there is no violation of the Bruton rule." 452 F.2d at 1010.

In the case of United States ex rel. Ortiz v. Fritz, supra, the confessions at issue not only covered different aspects of the crime, but were directly contradictory as to the time of its commission. Judge Oakes, writing for the Court, said:

"Although the three confessions do not all cover the same facts, they do interlock and are consistent as regard the slaying. As to the time of commission, there is a considerable discrepancy. . . . This means that one or more of the confessions is false or erroneous. But we do not think it takes away from the 'interlocking' aspect of the confessions. As to motive, plot and execution of the crime they are essentially the same." 476 F.2d at 39.

The court below, while acknowledging the existence of the "interlocking confession" doctrine, felt that there were enough "significant differences" between the homicide confessions of Moll and Stanbridge to make Moll's inadmissible in the joint trial for that crime. These differences he found to be as follows:

1. Moll stated that petitioner had a gun. Petitioner maintained that he carried no "dangerous weapon". ¹⁵

2. Moll stated that before entering the supermarket he stopped and loaded his shotgun. Petitioner contended that prior to the shooting he was unaware that either of his companions was armed. ¹⁶

3. Moll stated that he had consulted with his companions before firing. Petitioner stated that...