Hall v. Johnston
| Decision Date | 19 July 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 8526.,8526. |
| Parties | HALL v. JOHNSTON, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
H. Karl Hall, in pro per.
H. H. McPike, U. S. Atty., and A. J. Zirpoli, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before DENMAN, STEPHENS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by H. Karl Hall, a prisoner incarcerated at Alcatraz Island, and appearing here forma pauperis.
As to be expected, the petition is somewhat informally drawn, but it substantially presents that the prisoner on or about May 1, 1934, was adjudged insane by the Monroe County West Virginia Lunacy Commission and committed to the Spencer State Hospital for the Insane at Spencer, W. Va., from whose custody he was transported on a stretcher, in a baggage car of a train, to the Western District of Missouri, where a federal indictment was returned against him in the September, 1934, term of the United States District Court for that district.
The petitioner further alleges that at the trial under the indictment, the court, knowing of his insanity, ordered him to be arraigned and to plead without an attorney. The prisoner complains that such conduct on the part of the judge having such knowledge is a violation of the judge's duty and the judgment of conviction ensuing his plea of guilty should be set aside because the acceptance of the plea without the provision of counsel is a denial of due process under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. There is also presented the question whether there has been a denial of the assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
The petition for the writ also raises certain questions, raised in a previous petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the present petitioner, which were considered in the opinion of this court in Hall v. Johnston, 86 F.(2d) 820. While a decision upon a writ of habeas corpus is not res judicata upon the same questions presented in a subsequent petition by the same petitioner for the writ (Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U.S. 224, 230, 44 S.Ct. 519, 521, 68 L.Ed. 989), we are satisfied that we committed no error in the disposition made of the questions discussed in the former appeal.
Here the fact alleged is that the court, having knowledge of the need of the prisoner for counsel to present his defense of insanity, and knowledge that he was claimed to be insane, failed to furnish counsel for the presentation of such defense.
The United States appeared upon the appeal and relied upon the record in the appeal on petitioner's prior petition. This discloses an adjudication of insanity and a commitment to the Spencer State Hospital for the Insane as alleged in the petition on the 1st day of May, 1934. This is sufficient to warrant an inference to overcome the presumption of sanity on the date of his trial in September, 1934. The record also discloses that at that trial the petitioner "upon being arraigned for plea, says he is guilty as charged."
The record does not disclose that the judge had knowledge of a claim of defense on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Witt
...his right to counsel supports a similar finding by the Superior Court in the case at bench. (Code Civ.Proc. § 1909; gen. see Hall v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 91 F.2d 363; People v. Glover, 257 Cal.App.2d 502, 512, 65 Cal.Rptr. The judgment is affirmed. WHELAN and AULT, JJ., concur. ...
-
Frame v. Hudspeth, 1966.
...accused is sane. The presumption of sanity continues until overcome by evidence. Lee v. United States, 5 Cir., 91 F.2d 326; Hall v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 91 F.2d 363; Id., 9 Cir., 103 F.2d 900; State v. Green, 78 Utah 580, 6 P.2d 177. When, however, it is once established that a person has been......
-
United States v. Meadows, Cr. A. No. 5553
...the presumption of sanity continues until overcome by evidence. See Lee v. United States, 5 Cir., 91 F.2d 326, 330; Hall v. Johnston, Warden, 9 Cir., 91 F.2d 363, 364. However, when it has been established that a prisoner has been legally adjudged mentally incompetent, the presumption of sa......
-
Robinson v. Johnston
...arises a presumption of lack of mental capacity, and the burden of proving mental capacity devolves upon him who asserts it. Hall v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 91 F.2d 363; Frame v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 109 F.2d 356. It is equally well settled that an insane person can not plead nor can he be sentence......