Hale v. Henderson

• Decision Date: 17 September 1968
• Docket Number: No. 18161.,18161.
• Citation: 400 F.2d 655
• Parties: Albert William HALE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Tennessee State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

400 F.2d 655 (1968)

Albert William HALE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Tennessee State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 18161.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

September 17, 1968.

Thomas D. Heekin (court appointed), Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner-appellant.

James M. Tharpe, Special Counsel for the State of Tennessee, Memphis, Tenn., for respondent-appellee.

Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and PECK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder, and following exhaustion of his remedies in the Tennessee courts instituted habeas corpus proceedings in the District Court. The present appeal followed dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.

The jury verdict of guilty could not have been obtained nor sustained in the absence of petitioner's oral and written confessions. Independent testimony established that he was introduced to the murder victim by the proprietor of an establishment in which she was working as a waitress sometime around midnight on a Friday night; that the two of them, accompanied by two other men and two other women, went in petitioner's automobile to a second establishment where they "ordered whiskey and barbecue"; and that at about 2 or 2:30 a. m. the six of them and another woman who wanted a ride home left that establishment, with the deceased driving petitioner's car. After dropping off the others (one of whom testified that she got home at 2:55 a. m.), petitioner drove off with the deceased. Between 8 and 8:30 a. m. Saturday morning the deceased's body was found at the Arkansas end of a bridge connecting Memphis with that state.

Petitioner testified that after dropping his passengers off he drove a short distance, stopped the car and got out and vomited; that he had another drink, they moved on with deceased driving and that he passed out in the back seat; that when he came to the car was stopped, he attempted to get out of the car, was struck and fell unconscious; that when he regained consciousness he was alone and that he then drove home.

The deceased's place of employment was ascertained through the tracing of a linen service laundry mark in her apron, and investigation there led to petitioner's arrest at his home at 1:15 a. m. Sunday. A search of his car at that time,¹ according to the testimony of an arresting officer, revealed "blood stains on the right panel and the car had been washed and the seats were still damp at the time I looked at them." Petitioner's wife had had the car washed Saturday morning. Upon arrival at Memphis Police Headquarters at 1:30 a. m. petitioner was advised that he was under arrest, of his right to an attorney, of his right either to make a statement or to remain silent, and of the fact that anything he said could be used against him. Two officers testified that petitioner said he "did not want an attorney." He was questioned for about an hour and a half at that time, with at least four officers present. Petitioner testified that he was refused permission to call his wife in order to ask her to get in touch with his lawyer, stating that the officer in charge told him that he could make no calls until he told "exactly what happened."

Petitioner was interrogated again on Sunday afternoon and twice Monday afternoon. At the afternoon session his pregnant wife was brought in and her complicity as an accessory after the fact as a result of having had the car washed was at least hinted at, and the possibility of their six children being turned over to juvenile authorities was discussed. That evening petitioner was brought in, and an oral confession was followed by his signing a written confession a 8:16 p. m. Receipt in evidence of both of these confessions creates the only substantial issues of this appeal. The confession states that petitioner stabbed the deceased three times with "a long shiney sic knife" because "she wanted some money for me to go with her," and that he thereafter took her body to the Arkansas end of the Harahan Bridge and dropped it through the railing to the ground below.

In its order dismissing the petition the District Court stated:

"In short, we have determined from the transcript of the record of this full and fair inquiry into the facts conducted in the State Court trial that both that Court and the Supreme Court of Tennessee correctly determined that petitioner\'s

...