Hall v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary

• Citation: 313 F.2d 483
• Decision Date: 17 January 1963
• Docket Number: No. 8592.,8592.
• Parties: Leonard HALL, Jr., Appellant, v. WARDEN, MARYLAND PENITENTIARY, Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)

313 F.2d 483 (1963)

Leonard HALL, Jr., Appellant, v. WARDEN, MARYLAND PENITENTIARY, Appellee.

No. 8592.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued June 7, 1962.

Decided January 17, 1963.

William F. Mosner, Towson, Md. (Court-assigned counsel), for appellant.

Robert F. Sweeney, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Maryland (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, on brief), for appellee.

Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and HAYNSWORTH, BOREMAN, BRYAN and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges, sitting en banc.

BOREMAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court denying relief in habeas corpus proceedings to Leonard Hall, Jr., a prisoner of the State of Maryland. Hall was convicted on November 11, 1959, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, of first degree murder and sentenced to death. On appeal to the Court of Appeals of Maryland the conviction was affirmed.¹ Relief was then sought under Maryland's Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act² but, after a hearing, relief was denied by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County and leave to appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals of Maryland in an opinion which discussed all the points raised.³ Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States.⁴

On November 29, 1961, Hall filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and that court issued the writ so that the prisoner "might have an opportunity to present his evidence on all issues." However, at the "hearing," Hall and his counsel declined to present any testimony and elected to submit the case on the transcript of the trial in the state court prepared for the appeal, and the transcript of the hearing held under the Post Conviction Procedure Act.⁵ The State also submitted the case on the record. The District Court, after carefully reviewing the transcripts and the decisions of the Maryland State Court, determined that Hall's constitutional rights had not been violated and denied relief.⁶

Pertinent facts will be recited herein but the full opinions in the cases cited in footnotes 1, 3 and 6 should be read in connection with this opinion.

On July 16, 1959, Anna Gaff, 66 years of age, was found stabbed to death in a tavern which she and her husband owned and operated at Essex in Baltimore County, Maryland. Cigar boxes containing cash, checks and certain keys were discovered to be missing from the premises. On the afternoon of that day while the police were searching at the tavern for clues and evidence, Hall, who had been sitting in the tavern, approached one of the officers and asked if he was working on the case and if there were any fingerprints. Hall stated, "Well, if you got fingerprints you will catch the person who did it." He told the officers that he had been in the tavern the night before, that he knew the Gaffs ("Mom and Pop") well, that he often came into the place and that he had stopped in to pay his respects. In response to the police sergeant's inquiry, Hall gave his name and said that the police could find him at a certain tavern if they wanted to talk to him. He then left. The police sergeant and his lieutenant agreed that it would be well to get Hall in for further questioning and, although he was not at the place he had indicated, they located him at a tavern which had a name quite similar to the name of the tavern where he had said he could be found. As he saw two policemen enter the tavern, Hall said, "I knew youse were coming." He then said to the proprietress, "Mary, they think I did it." These remarks by Hall were made before any statement to him by the police officers or before any indication was given by them that he was a murder suspect. In fact, it does not appear that he was actually under suspicion until he made these statements.

Hall willingly accompanied the officers, at their request, to the Essex police station for investigation and questioning and they arrived there at approximately six thirty in the evening of July 16. Hall stated that he had recently come from New Jersey and was staying at the Ritz Hotel in Baltimore, but the officers ascertained that there was no such hotel in Baltimore and so informed Hall. Other discrepancies developed in his statements, but he made no incriminating admissions. The interrogation continued and shortly after midnight Hall agreed to go with the police and point out the hotel where he was actually staying. Following Hall's directions, two detectives drove him to the Edison Hotel in the City of Baltimore. En route Hall pointed out a restaurant where he had eaten on the day of the crime. He then said to the officers, "I am not going to show you any more. I have told you enough. I think I ought to see a lawyer." One of the officers responded, "That is your privilege," but the subject does not appear to have been further mentioned or pursued. Before they had reached the hotel, however, Hall said to the officers, "I would like to see a minister," to which one replied, "Sure." A few minutes later Hall said, "You fellows have been nice to me. I will show you where the apartment, where the hotel room is." When they arrived at the hotel the "evidence squad," which had been following in another car, went to the room, located and numbered as indicated by Hall, and searched it while Hall remained with the officers in the patrol car on the street below. While awaiting the result of the search Hall covered his face with his hands, started crying and said, "I am not afraid to die; I am afraid of going to Hell. They are going to find the clothes when they get up in the room." Hall was then asked if he was willing to tell the officers about it and he agreed, stating that if they would take him to a station he would tell them just what happened. The searching officers had found, under a chair in Hall's room, the cigar boxes containing money, checks and keys missing from the Gaff tavern. Hall was then taken to the Parkville Station and on the way he said, "I don't know why I did it. I don't know. I just don't know."

Beginning shortly before two o'clock on the morning of July 17, 1959, he was interrogated by Captain Adams of the Baltimore County Police, who had discussed the case with two of the detectives, and Hall made a long oral statement in which he admitted robbing the tavern, carrying a loaded gun, and binding and gagging Mrs. Gaff. He said that after taking the money he went to the bar, drank four or five shots of whiskey, noticed that Mrs. Gaff had gotten the gag loose and that she was "hollering" for help. In fact, he told in detail how he had entered the premises and what he had done up to the time of Mrs. Gaff's outcry. Hall said that he was not sure what happened then, "I must have killed her but I don't know." Detective Davis made longhand notes as Hall gave his statement and this questioning continued until approximately half past two o'clock. About an hour later a court reporter was brought in and Hall made a second statement. The interrogation was concluded at approximately 4:15 o'clock in the morning. During the periods of interrogation, Hall was provided with cigarettes, coca cola, coffee and perhaps doughnuts. The following morning Hall conferred with an attorney employed by his father.

Following his indictment, Hall's jury trial began on November 9, 1959, during the course of which he took the stand for the purpose of testifying, out of the presence of the jury, concerning the voluntary nature of his confessions. His testimony at this point did not convince the trial court that the confessions and admissions were obtained from him by threats, promises or inducements and the oral confessions were permitted, over defense counsel's strenuous objection, to go to the jury. After the prosecution had rested its case defense attorneys, whose services were provided by members of Hall's family, called several witnesses to testify. Late in the evening, Hall was called to the witness stand but before he could begin his testimony court was adjourned until the next day. On the following morning, instead of recalling Hall as a witness in his own defense, his attorneys reconsidered the advisability of permitting him to testify and rested the case. Hall contends that this decision was arbitrarily made by his counsel, without his consent or acquiescence and contrary to his instructions.

We turn to the petitioner's brief for his statement of the questions which are submitted for our consideration on this appeal. They are as follows:

"1. Was the decision of the trial attorneys, that Hall should not testify in his own behalf, made without his consent or acquiescence?

"(a) If so, did Hall receive a constitutionally fair trial when, against his will, he was deprived of the right to testify in his own behalf?

"2. Was the confession voluntary?

"3. Did the State introduce evidence at the trial in 1959 which was the product of an illegal search?

"(a) If so, is the Doctrine of Mapp v. Ohio⁷ retroactive to vitiate the conviction on constitutional grounds?"

1. ALLEGED DENIAL BY HALL'S COUNSEL OF OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY

We first note particularly that no oral testimony to support the allegations of the petition was offered before the District Judge although full opportunity to make such presentation was given. At the so-called hearing Hall and his counsel presented to the District Court nothing but a cold record consisting of typewritten transcripts of testimony and proceedings in courts of the State of Maryland. The District Court found, from this material so submitted, that "Hall acquiesced reluctantly in the decision of his counsel" that Hall should not testify at his trial in his own behalf.

We have examined the records and transcripts which were available to the District Court and which are a part of the record on appeal. It appears that, following his indictment, Hall was represented by two attorneys and he conferred with them on...