Ex parte Gammon, 6 Div. 218
| Decision Date | 10 May 1951 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 218 |
| Citation | 255 Ala. 502,52 So.2d 369 |
| Parties | Ex parte GAMMON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Winton G. Wilson, Birmingham, for petitioner.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and Thos. F. Parker, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the state.
This is an application to this Court for authority to file in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner was convicted in said court of murder in the second degree and his punishment fixed at forty-five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The judgment of conviction and sentence were affirmed in this Court. Gammon v. State, Ala.Sup., 50 So.2d 273.
The brief filed in this Court on behalf of petitioner predicates his right to a writ of error coram nobis on fraud practiced on the trial by R. A. McMurdo, a detective for the city of Birmingham, with the knowledge of the deputy solicitor who prosecuted this case. The basis of said fraud is in the facts asserted that when McMurdo was called as a witness he had a duty not to suppress evidence favorable to the defendant, or to allow evidence favorable to the defendant to fade from his memory, but should have testified truthfully and unhesitatingly to all matters within his knowledge. The witness testified on cross-examination that he could not say whether or not other pictures were made. He identified several pictures presented in evidence at the trial. It is claimed that McMurdo's testimony should have revealed the fact that other pictures were taken, which were material evidence for the defendant, and that they were fraudulently suppressed.
The crime occurred in the cafe operated by the defendant. There were several eye-witnesses who testified. Testimony on behalf of the defendant tended to show that the defendant was standing behind the counter and deceased used some opprobrious language to him. Whereupon the deceased, with his fists doubled up, got on the counter and then, with a beer bottle in his hand, jumped over behind the counter and started after defendant who backed away from him as far as he could with the deceased continuing to advance until finally defendant shot him. Other witnesses to the transaction were examined, and testified that they did not see deceased get up on the counter nor get behind the counter and he was not there when he was shot; that deceased had no weapon and was not making an attack on defendant, and there was no provocation for the shooting.
Petitioner claims that the other photographs, which were taken on the occasion and of which McMurdo knew, showed there was a foot print in some dust on the counter. The photograph is exhibited as a part of the proof on this application. We cannot distinguish from the photograph a foot print on the counter. The proof does not show that the deputy solicitor for the State had any knowledge that McMurdo was suppressing the truth, if such be the fact. It is also claimed that the defendant informed his attorney, who represented him on the trial, of such fact and insisted upon his making every effort to obtain their production, but that he neglected to do so; and did not put the defendant on the stand as a witness, although defendant thought it advisible that he should testify.
The affidavit of the defendant submitted here complains of the negligence of his attorney in preparing for the defense and in conducting it in court. That he failed to summon witnesses and secure the benefit of the pictures in question, and was otherwise negligent.
After the verdict and judgment were rendered, the defendant employed another attorney to make a motion for a new trial, and still another is representing him on this application. Although he explained to the one representing him on the motion that there was such a picture made showing the foot prints of the deceased on the counter, and although several witnesses had not told the truth, and notwithstanding he said he could get the proof of those matters, his attorney did not try to get the proof, and his motion for a new trial was denied. The motion for a new trial was not predicated on such ground, but only on the grounds the verdict was contrary to the instructions of the court, to the great weight of the evidence, and to the law. Afterwards this defendant consulted another law firm who advised him that they could do...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodard v. State
...testimony); Ex parte Taylor, 249 Ala. 667, 32 So.2d 659 (coerced confession--fear blocked disclosure to counsel); Ex parte Gammon, 255 Ala. 502, 52 So.2d 369 (suppression of evidence favorable to Gammon); Ex parte Fewell, 261 Ala. 246, 73 So.2d 558 (suppression of another's confession); Ex ......
-
Summers v. State
...a writ of error, motion for new trial, or writ of certiorari. Vincent v. State, 284 Ala. 242, 244 So.2d 601 (1969); Ex parte Gammon, 255 Ala. 502, 52 So.2d 369 (1951); Daniels v. State, 48 Ala.App. 750, 267 So.2d 540 (1972). A petition for writ of error coram nobis will not be granted and i......
-
People v. Williams
...Prison in Sacramento County.5 Coram nobis is a proper remedy for knowing use of perjury in at least seven states: See Ex Parte Gammon (1951) 255 Ala. 502, 52 So.2d 369, 370; Pike v. State (1931) 103 Fla. 594, 139 So. 196, 198; Yon v. State (1939) 138 Fla. 770, 190 So. 252; Dolan v. State (1......
-
Thompson v. State
...783 (1976), despite earlier indications to the contrary. Ex parte Argo, 41 Ala.App. [ 442] at 444, 137 So.2d 755; Ex parte Gammon, 255 Ala. 502, 505, 52 So.2d 369 (1951)." Coram nobis, therefore, can now be used to raise claims of inadequate assistance of counsel, although earlier cases ref......