Hinman v. McCarthy

• Decision Date: 11 May 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-5051,81-5051
• Citation: 676 F.2d 343
• Parties: Russell Lee HINMAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. D. J. McCARTHY, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 343

676 F.2d 343

Russell Lee HINMAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. D. J. McCARTHY, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 81-5051.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 7, 1981.

Decided Feb. 16, 1982.

As Amended on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc May 11, 1982.

Shunji Asari, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for respondent-appellant; George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Owen Lee Kwong, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.

Karen R. Smith, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before WALLACE and TANG, Circuit Judges, and TURRENTINE, ^* District Judge.

WALLACE, Circuit Judge:

McCarthy (the State) appeals from an order of the district court granting a writ of habeas corpus to Hinman pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The State makes three different challenges to the granting of this collateral relief. First, the State contends that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), which authorizes federal magistrates to conduct evidentiary hearings in habeas proceedings and make recommendations to the district court, constitutes an unconstitutional delegation under Article III and violates principles of comity and federalism. Second, the State argues that Hinman should be denied federal habeas relief as he has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate his federal claim in state court. Last, the State contends that the district court erred in concluding that the improper admission of a statement elicited from Hinman by the police in violation of his Miranda rights, was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.

I

A jury found Hinman guilty of murder in the first degree and of assault with a deadly weapon, in connection with the stabbing death of Hopkins on the morning of June 19, 1975. The events occurring prior to the stabbing are significant. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788-89, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

Hinman, age 18, and three young friends, Gutierrez, Harger, and Kicklighter, were walking to a hospital, in order to obtain medical treatment for injuries they had suffered in an earlier traffic accident. On the way, Gutierrez entered a parked automobile, apparently searching for something within the car, and then after exiting the vehicle, threw a brick through its window. The contents of the glove compartment were later found scattered on the floor of the automobile. After the car window was broken, the four youths ran to the hospital. They were denied treatment because they were under age and were returning when the stabbing occurred.

Green had observed Gutierrez throwing the brick through the window of the automobile from his apartment and decided to find a public telephone and to call the police. While riding his bicycle in search of a telephone, Green encountered the four young men and asked them about the breaking of the car window. Green testified that after he mentioned that someone was going to call the police, Hinman pushed Green off his bicycle and the two began to fight in the street. Then, according to Green, Hinman asked Green if he wanted to get stabbed, and Green ran.

When Green reached his apartment house he saw Hopkins standing at the doorway. Hinman and the other three boys caught up with Green, and Hinman was overheard making the statement "take it there." Green then entered the apartment house, whereupon he first realized that he had been stabbed. A few minutes later, Green went back outside and found Hopkins badly wounded, but was unaware of how the injury occurred.

Dooley, looking through her apartment window, saw the confrontation between Hopkins and the four young men. She saw Hopkins lying on the sidewalk fighting with one of them and heard one of the other young men say, "Turn him around. Come on. Turn him around. We will get him." She then observed one of them pick up an object that looked like a tent stake and turn toward Hopkins. At that point she backed away from the window.

At Hinman's trial, Kicklighter and Gutierrez each asserted his privilege against self-incrimination. A police officer was permitted to read to the jury statements he had obtained from them shortly after the incident in question. As to the stabbing of Hopkins, Kicklighter told the police that while Hinman was fighting with Hopkins, Gutierrez took Hopkins's wallet out of his pocket. Kicklighter then stated, "As soon as Richard got the wallet, we ran across the street. When we got in Debbie's house, (Hinman) said he had stabbed the guy. (Gutierrez) pulled the guy's wallet out and started counting it. Everybody was supposed to get $5, but he went to the store." Gutierrez told the police that after Hopkins had been stabbed in front of the apartment house, he saw three $20 bills lying on the ground. He admitted taking the money and stated that later Hinman and Kicklighter wanted to "go halves" on the money, but he refused.

Hinman was apprehended by the police shortly after the homicide. When asked why he had run, Hinman stated "my two friends were going to rob this man ... I didn't want to be associated in the robbery." The trial court admitted this statement despite the absence of proper warnings. The California Court of Appeals held that there was a violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) (Miranda ), but found the error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

After being denied a petition for hearing in the California Supreme Court, Hinman sought federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Hinman attacked his conviction, arguing, among other things, that the admission into evidence of his statement concerning the robbery violated his Miranda rights. The district court assigned the case to a magistrate who recommended that the district court grant Hinman's relief. The district court agreed with the magistrate that admission into evidence of Hinman's statement, which was obtained without the warnings mandated by Miranda, was not harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the district court issued an alternative writ requiring Hinman's release or retrial.

II

The State argues that the grant of a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner based on findings of fact made by a United States Magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), is an unconstitutional delegation of judicial power under Article III. Furthermore, the State contends that such a delegation is incompatible with principles of federalism and comity to the extent that it allows state court judgments on habeas corpus petitions to be set aside by officers who are not Article III judges. We first consider the constitutional attack.

A.

In United States v. Saunders, 641 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 918, 101 S.Ct. 3055, 69 L.Ed.2d 422 (1981), we upheld the constitutionality of the Magistrate's Act with regard to the delegation of certain jury scheduling and instruction duties to an officer other than an Article III judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). We reach the same conclusion for the delegation in this case. While magistrates are not Article III judges, United States v. Saunders, supra, 641 F.2d at 663, Congress has delegated certain judge-like functions to magistrates. Under the law, magistrates may conduct evidentiary hearings in habeas proceedings, as was done in this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Supreme Court has recognized that Congress may establish "legislative courts" whose judges do not enjoy Article III protections, when "necessary and proper" to resolve cases arising under the substantive powers conferred upon Congress by Article I. See, e.g., American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton (Canter), 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828) (territorial courts); Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 L.Ed. 598 (1932) (delegation of fact-finding to administrative officers in claims under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act); Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389, 93 S.Ct. 1670, 36 L.Ed.2d 342 (1973) (local matters arising in the District of Columbia); Gosa v. Mayden, 413 U.S. 665, 93 S.Ct. 2926, 37 L.Ed.2d 873 (1973) (Court of Military Appeals).

In Saunders, we observed that the Supreme Court has suggested that Congress's delegation power is not unlimited, Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 549, 82 S.Ct. 1459, 1472, 8 L.Ed.2d 671 (1962), and that "inherently judicial" tasks must be performed by Article III judges. United States v. Saunders, supra, 641 F.2d at 663. However, we pointed out that the Supreme Court has recently allowed magistrates to perform "inherently judicial" tasks when they do so under the supervision of an Article III judge. Id. In United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980), the Supreme Court faced a challenge to Congress's power to delegate certain fact-finding and recommendation functions with respect to a suppression motion in a criminal case. The Court stated that Congress was alert to Article III values when it vested such decision making power in magistrates and thus made it clear in enacting 28 U.S.C. § 636 that the ultimate decision rests with the district court. The Court stated:

We need not decide whether, as suggested by the Government, Congress could constitutionally have delegated the task of rendering a final decision on the suppression motion to a non-Art. III officer.... Congress has not sought to make any such delegation. Rather, Congress has provided that the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations shall be subjected to a de novo determination 'by the judge who ... then exercise(s) the ultimate authority to issue an appropriate order.'

Id. at 681-82, 100 S.Ct. at 2415-16, quoting S.Rep.No.625, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 3 (1976). See also Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S....