Goodwin v. Page
Decision Date | 18 November 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 303-69.,303-69. |
Citation | 418 F.2d 867 |
Parties | Paul GOODWIN, Appellee, v. Ray H. PAGE, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
H. L. McConnell, Asst. Atty. Gen. (G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., and W. Howard O'Bryan, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellant.
Milton Keen, Oklahoma City, Okl. (Max Moulton, Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal taken on behalf of appellant Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, from an order and judgment granting relief to Goodwin, a state prisoner, on his petition for habeas corpus filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Similar relief had earlier been denied to Goodwin by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma after an evidentiary hearing. Goodwin v. Page, 444 P.2d 833. However, it clearly appears that the material facts were not adequately developed at the state court hearing and that the federal court properly held an independent evidentiary hearing. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (3). The multiple federal constitutional problems involved in the 1936 state court pre-trial and trial proceedings are reflected in the district court's exhaustive findings and conclusions. 296 F.Supp. 1205. Included in such findings and dispositive of Goodwin's claim to relief from the 1936 conviction is the following:
The finding is amply supported in the record. It is undisputed that Goodwin and one Lindsey were charged with the 1936 murder of a Seminole City police officer; that at the trial court level each of the accused was represented by counsel, Goodwin by Attorney Hill and Lindsey by Attorney Billingsley; that separate trials were ordered and that the state elected to try Goodwin first. Although there is now no record transcript of Goodwin's trial and many of the participants in the trial are now dead, two witnesses testified at the federal hearing as to what transpired at that trial. Attorney Billingsley was present with his client Lindsey and R. E. Criswell, a prosecutor at the trial, was an active participant at the trial. Both witnesses testified that an extra-judicial statement of Lindsey, accusing Goodwin of firing the fatal shot, was admitted in evidence and that another and earlier statement by Lindsey confessing that he was the actual killer was refused as evidence. Billingsley also testified that he attended the Goodwin trial for the very purpose of assuring that Lindsey did not testify. Such procedure was a particularly abusive denial of Goodwin's constitutional right to confrontation and demands federal relief under the mandate of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, given retroactive effect in Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 20 L.Ed.2d 1100, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anderson v. Nosser
...dismissed, 338 U.S. 809, 70 S.Ct. 49, 94 L.Ed. 489. But see Goodwin v. Page, E.D.Okl.1969, 296 F.Supp. 1205, aff'd on other grounds, 10 Cir., 418 F.2d 867. Plaintiffs' federal allegations therefore must The same result does not obtain, however, under plaintiffs' pendent state claim. Mississ......
-
Commonwealth v. Holmes
...requires credit for State prisoners under such circumstances. See Tucker v. Peyton, 357 F.2d 115 (4th Cir.1966); Goodwin v. Page, 418 F.2d 867, 868 (10th Cir.1969).15 The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applied the same result in favor of a Federal prisoner in Meadows v......
-
Bruton v. Phillips
...violated where a co-defendant's confession inculpating the accused is introduced against him in a separate trial. Goodwin v. Page, 418 F.2d 867 (10th Cir.1969). The Sixth Amendment protections are not so broad, however, as to exclude the admission of certain hearsay statements against an ac......
-
State v. Gall
...States ex rel. McKee v. Maroney, 264 F.Supp. 684 (M.D.Pa.1967) ; Johnson v. Henderson, 455 F.2d 983 (5th Cir.1972) ; Goodwin v. Page, 418 F.2d 867 (10th Cir.1969). {¶ 35} However, the foregoing case law is distinguishable in that it involves convictions imposed by courts of the same soverei......