Bradford v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 28 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1905.,72-1905. |
| Citation | 476 F.2d 66 |
| Parties | Lionel BRADFORD, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Perry JOHNSON, Warden of the State Prison of Southern Michigan, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Stewart H. Freeman, Asst. Sol. Gen., for respondent-appellant; Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Mich., on brief.
David R. Hood, Detroit, Mich., Court-appointed, for petitioner-appellee.
Before EDWARDS and McCREE, Circuit Judges, and YOUNG,* District Judge.
This appeal from the granting of a writ of habeas corpus presents the question whether a person convicted by a state's knowing use of coerced testimony obtained by torture, threats and abuse of a witness is in custody in violation of his Constitutional right to due process of law. We answer this question in the affirmative and affirm the judgment of the District Court for the reasons stated in its opinion reported at 354 F.Supp. 1331.
Affirmed.
* The Honorable Don J. Young, U. S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. Klee
...coerced testimony may violate a defendant's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Bradford v. Johnson, 476 F.2d 66 (6th Cir. 1973), the Supreme Court has not so ruled. See Samuel v. Frank, 526 F.3d 566, 569 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Johnson v. Bell, 525 F.3d 4......
-
State v. Wolery
...and their staffs should hereafter avoid such unseemly behavior.4 In Bradford v. Johnson (E.D.Mich.1972), 354 F.Supp. 1331, affirmed (C.A.6, 1973), 476 F.2d 66, testimony secured by blatant torture was excluded. A witness, Payne, was questioned by police officers and prosecutors during a per......
-
Duvall v. Bell
...coerced testimony may violate a defendant's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Bradford v. Johnson, 476 F.2d 66 (6th Cir. 1973), the United States Supreme Court has not so ruled. See, e.g., Samuel v. Frank, 526 F.3d 566, 569 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Johnso......
-
State v. Gray
...(E.D. Mich. 1972) (defendant had standing to assert due process violation stemming from use of coerced witness testimony), aff'd, 476 F.2d 66 (6th Cir. 1973). Because the state does not dispute the constitutional magnitude of the defendant's claim, and we resolve this claim under the third ......