Anderson v. State of North Carolina
Decision Date | 07 October 1963 |
Docket Number | Misc. No. 25. |
Citation | 221 F. Supp. 930 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
Parties | Horace ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent. |
Theodore C. Brown, Jr., Staff Atty., Office of Atty. Gen. of North Carolina, Raleigh, N. C., for respondent.
This is a civil action begun by application for a writ of habeas corpus. Upon issuance of the writ, the State of North Carolina responded by answer, and two evidentiary hearings have been held.
"Where the facts are in dispute, the federal court on habeas corpus must hold an evidentiary hearing if the habeas applicant did not receive a full and fair evidentiary hearing in a state court, either at the time of the trial or in a collateral proceeding." Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 312, 83 S.Ct. 745, 757, 9 L.Ed.2d 770, 785 (1963). (Emphasis added).
"The duty to try the facts anew exists in every case in which the state court has not after a full hearing reliably found the relevant facts." Id., 83 S.Ct. p. 759, 9 L.Ed.2d p. 788.
But, if the habeas applicant has been afforded a "full and fair hearing by the state court resulting in reliable findings", the federal judge "may, and ordinarily should, accept the facts as found in the hearing." Id., 83 S.Ct. p. 760, 9 L.Ed.2d p. 789.
Unfortunately for this court's "delicate role in the maintenance of proper federal-state relations" (Ibid), no hearing of any sort was accorded petitioner Anderson in the courts of North Carolina despite a modern and enlightened procedural machinery adequately designed to determine the basic historical facts underlying constitutional questions and to review such questions.1 Although the federal judge may not "defer" or give "binding weight"2 to the state courts' conclusions of law, it does not follow that his independent application of federal law to state court fact findings will necessarily depart from state court conclusions of law.
Since there were no state court findings of fact with respect to the alleged unconstitutionality of petitioner's confinement, this court is now compelled to supply them.
A "plenary", "evidentiary", "trial-type"3 habeas corpus hearing ought to be conducted in an atmosphere of a search for truth by the presiding judge with the fair-minded assistance of the responding government rather than a strictly adversary proceeding. This is so because no enlightened government, whether federal or state, ought be assumed to wish to continue the confinement of one of its citizens except in accordance with law. A completely adversary atmosphere with too rigid adherence to rules of evidence can sometimes discourage even competent questions and exclude relevant information. Moreover, it ought not be forgotten that "the common law rules of evidence grew up exclusively in jury trial, and do not apply `ex stricto jure' in any tribunal but a jurycourt." 1 Wigmore on Evidence, Section 4(b), p. 27 (3d Edition).
Even so, the evidence problems which arose at the hearings can be avoided. The decision of the court does not turn on the report of the prison psychiatrist or upon the testimony of petitioner's former counsel with respect to any confidential communication, and it is not necessary to rule on the competency of such evidence.
From competent evidence to which no objection was taken, the court finds the facts to be as follows:
"The Court: You do it freely and voluntarily, knowing the probability is you will get an extended prison term, is that right?"
"The Defendant: Yes, sir." (Id. at p. 2)
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. West
...when defendant's counsel was not present (Shupe v. Sigler, supra, 230 F.Supp. at 606 (alternative holding); Anderson v. North Carolina (D.C., 1963) 221 F.Supp. 930, 934); inadequate advice of counsel (United States v. Rogers (D.C., 1968) 289 F.Supp. 726, 729--730) or illusory promises by th......
-
Com. ex rel. Kerekes v. Maroney
... ... Michael KEREKES, Appellant, v. James F. MARONEY, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pa. Supreme Court of ... McClure v. Boles, 233 F.Supp. 928, 931 ... (N.D.W.Va.1964); Anderson v. State of North ... Carolina, 221 F.Supp. 930 (W.D.N.C.1963); Barber v ... ...
-
Buccheri, Application of
...to insist that his plea-bargain be honored. At least one court has suggested that there is such a right. Anderson v. State of North Carolina, 221 F.Supp. 930, 934, n. 5 (D.C.1963). That the court in passing upon the validity of a plea of guilty should not be concerned with whether the defen......
-
Blake v. State
...Lee v. United States, 232 F.2d 770 (5th Cir.1963) (absence of counsel during pre-trial police interrogation); Anderson v. North Carolina, 221 F.Supp. 930 (W.D.N.C.1963) (absence of counsel at pre-trial conference held in jail with solicitor with consent of defendant's counsel, at which accu......