Ex parte Williams
Decision Date | 09 October 1958 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 302 |
Citation | 108 So.2d 454,268 Ala. 535 |
Parties | Ex parte Charles W. WILLIAMS. Charles W. WILLIAMS v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Charles W. Williams, petitioner, pro se.
John Patterson, Atty. Gen., and Robt. Straub, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
In April, 1950, in the Circuit Court of Shelby County, the petitioner, Charles W. Williams, was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. After motion for new trial was denied petitioner appealed to this court and the judgment of conviction was affirmed. Williams v. State, 255 Ala. 229, 51 So.2d 250.
The instant proceeding was instituted by filing in this court a petition for leave to file in the Circuit Court of Shelby County an application for writ of error coram nobis in the above mentioned cause. The judgment of conviction having been here affirmed, the procedure is proper. Ex parte Lee, 248 Ala. 246, 27 So.2d 147; Brown v. State, 250 Ala. 444, 35 So.2d 518.
We have considered carefully and in detail all the exhibits accompanying the petition filed in this court, as well as the record of the trial filed here on appeal. Altogether the exhibits and record consist of more than 1600 typewritten pages, and include a transcript of testimony on preliminary hearing and also on a mistrial of this cause in January, 1950, a 238 page autobiography of petitioner, and his 343 page brief.
Petitioner has discussed all the testimony presented on the three trials of his case and has argued and meticulously pointed out discrepancies, inconsistencies, and contradictions which do exist in the three records. In his brief, petitioner asserts that he was denied a fair trial and was deprived of his liberty without due process of law in violation of the guaranties of the Constitution. In pertinent part the brief recites:
Petitioner's argument is that his denial of due process resulted from a conspiracy against him and that he was convicted on perjured testimony knowingly used by the State. With reference to the alleged perjuries, the brief of petitioner recites:
'Moreover, a step-by-step, and circumstance-by-circumstance, examination and analysis of the Solicitor's 'conscious guilt' trial techniques in January, of his 'big lie' techniques in April; of why he changed his technique and why he chose the technique used in April; lead to the inescapable conclusion (were there no factual evidence foreclosing the same conclusion) that the Solicitor and/or other officers of the court had knowledge of the misrepresentations, half truths, distortions, untruths and outright perjuries contained in the testimony of King, Thurmond, Allen, W. F. Robertson and Frankie Swalley; had knowledge of the invalidity and fraudulence of the damnifying portions of the State's evidence, and that they were doing violence to every concept of justice in their use of such evidence (See Transcripts of January and April);'
This court has said:
Ex parte Gammon, 255 Ala. 502, 505, 52 So.2d 369, 370.
Ex parte Burns, 247 Ala. 98, 99, 22 So.2d 517, 518.
In reviewing a decision of this court on a petition for leave to apply for coram nobis, the rule to govern our consideration of such a petition has been stated by the Supreme Court of the United States as follows:
* * *.
* * *
* * *
(Parenthesis supplied.) Taylor v. Alabama, 335 U.S. 252, 262, 264, 265, 68 S.Ct. 1415, 1420, 92 L.Ed. 1935.
In accordance with the foregoing principles, we have considered the petition now before us. No useful purpose would be served by here setting out in detail the numerous contentions presented by the petitioner. To do so would extend this opinion to undue length. In so far as the contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony given at the three trials have any tendency to prove perjury on the part of any witness, the petitioner had the full benefit of those inconsistencies and contradictions at the trial which resulted in his conviction. Petitioner, on this last trial, had opportunity to confront the witnesses with inconsistent statements made on previous trials and, in fact, did so. Petitioner, in presenting his defense, and the jury in reaching a verdict, had full benefit of the instances where the testimony of a witness on the last trial was not the same as testimony previously given.
Although petitioner complains of the failure of his counsel to present certain matters to the jury, he acknowledges the competency of his attorneys in Exhibit NE-300, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woodard v. State
...of evidence favorable to Gammon); Ex parte Fewell, 261 Ala. 246, 73 So.2d 558 (suppression of another's confession); Ex parte Williams, 268 Ala. 535, 108 So.2d 454 (perjured testimony); Allison v. State, 273 Ala. 223, 137 So.2d 761 (perjured testimony); Mills v. State, 275 Ala. 217, 153 So.......
-
Summers v. State
...given at trial unless that false testimony was used by the State with the knowledge that it was perjured testimony. Williams v. State, 268 Ala. 535, 108 So.2d 454 (1959); Gammon, supra; Brown v. State, 250 Ala. 444, 35 So.2d 518 (1948); Burns, supra; King v. State, 349 So.2d 620 (Ala.Cr.App......
-
Hope v. State
...on the ground of newly discovered evidence where it appears that the evidence is merely cumulative or impeaching. Ex parte Williams, 268 Ala. 535, 538, 108 So.2d 454 (1958), cert. denied, Williams v. Alabama, 359 U.S. 1004, 79 S.Ct. 1142, 3 L.Ed.2d 1032 (1959); Taylor v. State, 266 Ala. 618......
-
Z.W.E. v. L.B.
...a sworn document, however, the alleged father's statements do not have the evidentiary effect of testimony. See, e.g., Ex parte Williams, 268 Ala. 535, 539, 108 So. 2d 454, 459 (1958)(holding that an unsworn statement "bears none of the accepted guaranties of truth" and that, when a stateme......