Hall v. Johnston
| Decision Date | 02 May 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 8882.,8882. |
| Citation | 103 F.2d 900 |
| Parties | HALL v. JOHNSTON. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
H. Karl Hall, in pro. per.
Stephen M. White, of San Francisco, Cal., amicus curiae.
Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., and Robert B. McMillan and A. J. Zirpoli, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, and DENMAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, seeking release on a writ of habeas corpus from the District Court, is imprisoned in the custody of the Warden of the United States Penitentiary at Alcatraz Island, California.
The District Court denied the writ and dismissed the petition. On a former appeal (Hall v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 91 F.2d 363) this court reversed the order denying the petition for the writ, holding that the petition sufficiently alleged a conviction by a judge knowing that the prisoner was insane at the time of his plea of guilty and that under Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 55 S.Ct. 340, 79 L.Ed. 791, 98 A.L.R. 406, he was entitled to offer his proof of that allegation.
Our opinion in that appeal discussed the question of the waiver of right of counsel without the benefit of the decision in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461, respecting the right in habeas corpus to show that the accused had not "competently and intelligently" made such a waiver.
In conformity with the decision on the appeal, the District Court issued an order to show cause why the writ should not issue, to which the Warden made a return. Thereafter the writ was issued, the petitioner, represented by counsel, and the Warden, represented by the United States Attorney, appeared, evidence both oral and documentary was introduced, the case submitted, the writ ordered dismissed and the petitioner remanded to the custody of the Warden. This appeal followed.
The writ was ordered dismissed by the district judge prior to the decision in Johnson v. Zerbst, supra.
The petition for the writ presents the question of petitioner's want of counsel in the arraignment and plea of guilty in an inartificial allegation in which was combined the claim that, "the trial court was notified at the time of trial that this petitioner was insane and incapable of preparing any defense," and that "the court ordered him to be arraigned and to plead without an attorney * * *."
The court below made no findings on the issues tendered by the petition for the writ. It is admitted by the appellee that neither party presented to that court the question of prisoner's right to counsel in the light of the holding in Johnson v. Zerbst, supra. The attorney for the Warden frankly admits he does not believe it was so considered.
The judgment upon which the appellant was sentenced contains the statement that "defendant in his own proper person, and upon being arraigned for plea says he is guilty (Sec. 753J 753j, T. 18 U.S.C.A.) of aiding and abetting escape of convicts from Federal Prison, as charged * * *." It thus appears that appellant did not enjoy the assistance of counsel for his defense, and permits the contention that he did not "competently and intelligently" waive his constitutional right.
Deputy United States Marshal Robert Pullian testified as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Redfield
...mental faculties. Under those circumstances, it may have been appropriate to have had a psychiatric hearing. But, in Hall v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 1939, 103 F.2d 900, it was pointed out that at the time of the defendant's plea of guilty the trial judge knew that defendant was "insane," 103 F.2d......
-
Bishop v. United States
...Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 1939, 109 F.2d 356, 358-359, reversed on other grounds, 1940, 309 U.S. 632, 60 S.Ct. 712, 84 L.Ed. 989; Hall v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 1939, 103 F.2d 900. And it needs no citation to establish that sanity as an issue in a jury case must be submitted to the jury. 10 United Stat......
-
Brewer v. Hunter, 3478.
...sole grounds that the question of sanity may not be raised by collateral attack. Srygley v. Sanford, 5 Cir., 148 F. 2d 264; Hall v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 103 F.2d 900; Frame v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 109 F.2d 356; McMahan v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 150 F.2d 498; Chase v. Hiatt, D.C., 54 F.Supp. 270. Still......
-
Frame v. Hudspeth, 1966.
...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 legally adjudged mentally incomp......