Ex parte Goodwin
| Decision Date | 18 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 49431,49431 |
| Citation | 359 S.W.2d 601 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Marcus GOODWIN, Petitioner. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Mortimer A. Rosecan, St. Louis, Orville Richardson, St. Louis, of counsel, for petitioner.
Thomas F. Eagleton, Atty. Gen., Howard L. McFadden, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
The petition for habeas corpus filed by Marcus Goodwin on March 21, 1962, was heard by the Court en Banc on March 29, 1962. The Petitioner Marcus Goodwin appeared in person and by his attorney, Mortimer A. Rosecan. Respondent E. V. Nash, Warden of the Missouri State Penitentiary, was represented by Howard L. McFadden, an Assistant Attorney General. Evidence was heard and the Petitioner was given five days in which to file a brief. Respondent was given five days thereafter in which to answer the Petitioner's brief. Petitioner filed his brief on April 9, 1962, and on April 19, 1962, respondent Warden Nash filed a brief. Petitioner was granted time to file a reply brief which was filed on May 1, 1962.
After due consideration of the evidence and the briefs, the Court finds that the Petitioner Marcus Goodwin was represented by counsel at the trial of his case in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri; that the attorney, Lee Vertis Swinton who represented Petitioner at the trial, is an able lawyer who had had previous experience in the trial of criminal cases, including the defense of persons charged with murder; and that trial counsel conducted the defense intelligently and with discrimination. The Court further finds that neither the trial evidence nor the evidence heard in this habeas corpus proceeding has convinced the Court that Petitioner was insane at the time he signed the statement or confession given to police officers or at the time of trial, or that he was thereby deprived of a fair trial or of due process.
Evidence which counsel did not discover and which it is claimed should have been discovered and presented to the trial jury was introduced in the record on this, the habeas corpus, hearing. Reviewing this evidence, we find that while portions thereof may have been favorable to the defendant other portions directly connected with the favorable evidence were very detrimental to the defendant. It is doubtful if that evidence would have aided the defendant.
In determining the question of whether a defendant was adequately represented by counsel, the situation should be considered as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodwin v. Swenson, 1079.
...Missouri. The per curiam denial of that petition, after a hearing in that court held March 29, 1962, is reported as In re Goodwin, Mo.Sup.Ct. en banc 1962, 359 S.W. 2d 601, cert. denied 371 U.S. 915, 83 S.Ct. 262, 9 L.Ed.2d 174. The Governor of Missouri, two days before the Supreme Court of......
-
State v. Wilkinson
...where counsel decided that accused should not take the stand.' This statement is quoted with approval by the court en banc in In re Goodwin, Mo., 359 S.W.2d 601, certiorari denied 371 U.S. 915, 83 S.Ct. 262, 9 L.Ed.2d Whether the accused has been afforded adequate and effective assistance o......
-
Pedicord v. Swenson
... ... It cannot, of course, defer to general conclusory statements unsupported by any substantial evidence. See Goodwin v. Swenson, W.D.Mo.1968, 287 F.Supp. 166 at 168 ... On April 1, 1952 one Paul A. Carter signed an "affidavit or complaint in ... ...
-
State v. Herron
...had effective assistance of counsel within the meaning of the due process clauses of both the State and Federal Constitutions. In re Goodwin, Mo., 359 S.W.2d 601; 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law Sec. 982, pp. 967-978; Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158; Cofield v. Uni......