George Felts v. Murphy

• Decision Date: 12 March 1906
• Docket Number: No. 533,533
• Parties: GEORGE W. FELTS, Appt. , v. E. J. MURPHY, Warden of the Illinois State Penitentiary at Joliet
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

201 U.S. 123

26 S.Ct. 366

50 L.Ed. 689

GEORGE W. FELTS, Appt.,

v E. J. MURPHY, Warden of the Illinois State Penitentiary at Joliet.

No. 533.

Argued February 26, 27, 1906.

Decided March 12, 1906.

The appellant was indicted in the circuit court of Winnebago county, in the state of Illinois, for the crime of murder. He was tried at the January term of that court, held in 1905, found guilty, and sentenced to the penitentiary for his natural life. He made an application to the circuit court of Cook county for a writ of habeas corpus, after judgment upon the verdict had been entered, and that court denied the writ. He then made a like application to the supreme court of the state of Illinois, which was denied. The appellant says that he was unable to obtain a writ of error in the state court, because, as he avers, it would cost between $700 and $800 to print the record, and that he was absolutely penniless, except that he had a pension of some $24 a month. Hence he was unable to obtain any relief in the state courts.

Subsequently the appellant applied by written petition to the United States circuit court for the northern district of Illinois, eastern division, for the same writ, to be directed to the warden of the Illinois state penitentiary, where the petitioner was confined under the judgment entered upon the verdict of guilty upon the trial of the indictment. The appellant alleged in his petition the foregoing facts, and also, among other things, that he was not guilty of the crime of which he was indicted and had been convicted. He further stated and described the circumstances in which the killing was done, and said that he had been set upon on a dark night by some one unknown to him, who came upon him from behind and grasped him by the neck and almost broke it as he ran him about in the dark; that his neck was very badly hurt in the struggle and marks were left upon it visible for days thereafter. In the struggle the person was killed and the petitioner was subsequently convicted of his murder. The petitioner is a veteran of the Civil War, and lost his hearing in the line of his duty as a soldier, and is now between sixty and seventy years of age. He is so deaf that he can only hear when a person speaks into the mouthpiece of his ear trumpet, close to his ear.

He alleged in his petition that, upon the trial of the case, he did not hear one single word of the examination of the jurors, either by the state's attorney or by his own counsel; that he did not hear the names of the jurors nor their business, and could not confer intelligently with his counsel as to the advisability of acceptance or rejection of a juror, and, as a matter of fact, he was not consulted and did not know the facts elicited by the examination of the jurors before acceptance; that if he had known the facts as they occurred he would have counseled the rejection of certain jurors on account of their relationship to other people; that he did not hear or have communicated to him, in any way, the evidence of the witnesses on the trial of his case, and that he was unable to suggest to his counsel any questions for their examination or cross-examination during the trial, and that the substance of their evidence was not communicated to him, and he did not know what it was until he saw some partial reports of it in the newspapers, when it was too late to suggest to his counsel proper cross-questions; that the first thing communicated to him after the beginning of the trial, which lasted about two weeks, was the verdict; he was in the court room, with his ear trumpet, but was unable to hear the verdict, and did not know what the verdict was until the clerk of the court wrote it upon a piece of paper and gave it to him.

He was present in the court room during the motion for a new trial, but did not hear a word that was said by either counsel, and the only thing communicated to him was when he was called to the bar to be sentenced.

The record shows that after the motion for a new trial had been made, the court said: 'On reviewing the entire case I am disposed to say that the motion for a new trial be overruled.' Continuing, the court said:

It is regretted in one sense that the defendant, on account of his infirmity, is unable to know clearly what has been done. He should be informed, I suppose, of the fact that his motion for a new trial has been overruled. Mr. Sheriff, will you bring Mr. Felts forward? I wish you would say to Mr. Felts that his motion for a new trial has been overruled.

The Sheriff: The court wishes me to tell you that motion for a new trial is overruled. Do you understand?

Felts: I understand; yes.

The Court: You may ask him if he has anything to say why sentence of the court should not now be pronounced.

The Sheriff: Have you anything to say why the sentence of the court should not be pronounced?

Felts: False swearing is all I got to say.

Court: Well, under the circumstances, of course, it is practically impossible for me to say anything to this defendant.

(Here follows the sentence of the court), which sentence was transmitted to the defendant by the sheriff through a tube.

The record shows that the appellant was himself examined as a witness on his trial and had the benefit of counsel, who appeared for and defended him upon such trial.

He contended before the Federal...