Kircheis v. Long

Decision Date06 December 1976
Docket NumberNo. 76-295-P,75-272-P.,76-295-P
Citation425 F. Supp. 505
PartiesRobert G. KIRCHEIS v. William H. LONG, Warden of Kilby Corrections Facility. Robert G. KIRCHEIS v. Kater WILLIAMS et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama

Vincent F. Kilborn, III, Mobile, Ala., for plaintiff.

Jack Curtis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., Roderick P. Stout, Mobile, Ala., for defendants.

ORDER AND DECREE

PITTMAN, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff, convicted of murdering his wife, is incarcerated in Kilby Correctional Center, Montgomery, Alabama. His original complaint, explicitly seeking injunctive and monetary relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, named seventeen defendants. Plaintiff later filed a separate writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Both actions were heard and are considered together. This order and decree is to be considered as an order and decree in each case.

Plaintiff's writ of habeas corpus attacks the legality of his state-imposed incarceration. Kircheis (petitioner) claims the prosecution withheld evidence that if produced would tend to exonerate him. It is further claimed that the prosecution made a "deal" with a key prosecution witness that special favors would be given him if he testified against Kircheis and that the defense was not informed of this "deal". His 1983 action seeks relief against Mobile City and County law enforcement officials who are claimed to have been responsible for wrongfully releasing plaintiff's personal property that was confiscated upon arrest. The City defendants and plaintiff have entered into a settlement agreement and the case against them has been dismissed. The complaint alleges that the disbursement of his personal property removed from his reach these aforementioned documents that tended to support plaintiff's claim of innocence. As a result of the distribution, plaintiff seeks both compensatory and punitive damages as well as a return of the property.

Kircheis was convicted by a jury in Mobile County Circuit Court in February 1975 of murdering his wife with malice aforethought. His conviction and life sentence was upheld by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, Kircheis v. State, 323 So.2d 412 (1975), and certiorari denied by the Alabama Supreme Court.

A review of the facts is necessary to understand the basis for the writ of habeas corpus and the 1983 action.

Plaintiff and his wife lived in an apartment in Mobile, Alabama. Both were college educated. Plaintiff had worked as an accountant at a local country club but prior to his wife's death he lost his job. Mrs. Kircheis was murdered on Saturday, April 13, 1974. She was bludgeoned to death by a claw hammer in her own bed at an undetermined time on Saturday. Her body was found that evening by friends.1

According to evidence for plaintiff, he and his wife had encountered marital problems as a result of his excessive drinking. On Thursday, April 11, they decided to make a new start in their marriage. It was agreed that plaintiff would leave town, look for a new job, and upon securing a position, his wife would join him. According to his testimony of his trial defense counsel, petitioner during his trial claimed that on Thursday, April 11, rather than looking for a job, he started drinking and deciding it unwise to leave town in his condition, spent the night in his car in front of his apartment. He intended to leave on Friday, but again started drinking and rather than drive while intoxicated, spent the night in the Eight Days Inn in Mobile on Friday evening. Upon checking out on Saturday morning, Kircheis obtained a receipt for the payment of the motel bill, placing it in a brown briefcase in which he carried many of his personal papers. He claims to have left Mobile early Saturday morning, arriving in Memphis, Tennessee between two and four P.M. that afternoon. He again started drinking and spent most of the evening at the Golden Nugget Topless bar in Memphis. Plaintiff did not remember, because of his intoxication, the motel in Memphis. He states that he later recollected the Golden Nugget only upon finding in his wallet a bar membership card. He believes that upon paying for the room in Memphis, he placed his motel receipt in the brown briefcase. From Memphis, petitioner journeyed to Sedalia, Missouri, where he spent Sunday night at the local Holiday Inn. The next day he left without paying for the room. He claims he retained his room key which he placed in his briefcase. Des Moines, Iowa and Reno, Nevada were his next stops. After several days in Reno, petitioner was arrested and incarcerated by the local authorities.

While locked-up in Reno, the FBI questioned the petitioner as to his wife's murder. Arrangements were made to extradite petitioner to Mobile to face murder charges. While in Reno, FBI Special Agent Ricks of the Reno office interviewed petitioner. Special Agent Ricks was given written permission by the petitioner and shipped all of plaintiff's belongings via registered mail to FBI Special Agent Farley in Mobile. Special Agent Farley, after inventorying the property, forwarded it to Lt. Sam McLarty of the Mobile City Police. During the same general time, FBI Special Agent Root of the Des Moines office was notified that plaintiff had, prior to enplaning in Des Moines for Reno, left his car in the Des Moines airport parking lot. After securing a search warrant, Agent Root removed all personal items from plaintiff's car, inventoried the contents and forwarded evidentiary items to the FBI laboratory in Washington, D.C. and what remained to the Mobile FBI office. The FBI laboratory examined the property and sent it to Agent Farley in Mobile, who made an inventory, and signed the items over to Lt. McLarty. The items sent from Des Moines directly to the Mobile FBI office were also signed over to Lt. McLarty.

Upon plaintiff's return to Mobile, he was placed in the Mobile City Jail. Documents were inventoried, xeroxed, and divided into evidentiary and non-evidentiary matters by the City Police. The petitioner was indicted for his wife's murder and was transferred to the county jail. Part of his property was transferred to the county jail to the custody of Deputy Robert L. Appling of the Mobile County Sheriff's Department.

The evidence is uncontradicted that Deputy Appling produced all the personal property of the petitioner's in his possession. It was searched and examined by the petitioner and his attorney.

The sought-after motel receipts and key were not in petitioner's possession or Deputy Appling's custody. Any materials in Deputy Appling's custody sought by the petitioner or his attorney of record was available to them at the time of trial but they did not choose to use any of these items.

Plaintiff's defense to the murder charge was that he was out of town at the time his wife met her death. This claim, according to plaintiff, would have been corroborated by motel receipts and motel key alleged to be in his brown suitcase or in his personal belongings. The initial pre-trial discovery exchanged between the defense and the prosecution failed to produce any motel receipts or keys. Petitioner then sought a motion to produce all documents and other objects. This was granted by the state court in December, 1974, more than two months prior to the trial. The City police then in possession of the property, in partial compliance with the order, allowed petitioner and his attorney to go through many of plaintiff's articles. The police did not, however, turn over the brown briefcase or any motel receipts. Trial began on February 26, 1975. It was not until one day prior to the trial that Mr. Childress, plaintiff's defense attorney, was able to go through the brown briefcase. Other luggage and personal belongings were not made available for this inspection. No motel receipts or keys were found. The jury did not believe plaintiff was out-of-town at the time of the murder and returned a guilty verdict. Introduction of the motel receipts may have raised a question in the jurors' minds as to whether he actually was in town during the murder.

The court does not know if the Memphis receipt existed. Following the trial, plaintiff, because he was facing life imprisonment, told fellow inmate W. C. Wilkens, he could have petitioner's personal property. It was agreed that Wilken's girlfriend, Patricia Bonner, would pick up the property. A relative of his girlfriend actually retrieved the property. Wilkens and his girlfriend ceased their relationship before Wilkens was released from prison. The girlfriend and her relative are thought to be in New Orleans, Louisiana. The whereabouts of this property is unknown.

At the hearing, the City police admitted that at the time of the murder trial, they were in possession of the Mobile motel receipt, the Missouri receipt, and the Missouri motel key. Admitted in evidence in the hearing and produced from the City's custody is an original Mobile motel receipt and a xeroxed Missouri motel registration. The original and key are missing. It is not clear why these items were not produced. The court has no way of knowing if it was negligence or deliberate suppression. It appears to have been gross negligence.

A second disturbing point was developed. When plaintiff was first returned to Mobile, he was placed in the city jail. An inmate, Melvin Summerlin, was placed in the cell with the petitioner to see what he could find out. Mobile authorities asked Summerlin to convey to them any information petitioner may relate regarding the circumstances surrounding plaintiff's wife's murder. At that time, the summer of 1974, Summerlin was co-defendant in a murder case. Summerlin gave a statement to police on July 30, 1974, concerning incriminating statements by petitioner, the petitioner, in the murder of his wife. Three and one-half months later, Summerlin pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of voluntary manslaughter, and was shortly thereafter released from custody. Summerlin...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • United States v. Zabady
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • June 15, 1982
    ... ... of an investigation for some time, we find that the Government's intention to now keep them under indictment and awaiting trial for such a long period of time is clearly unconscionable. In our view, such protracted post-indictment delay is patently inconsistent with society's "common interest ... ...
  • US v. Bouthot, Cr. No. 87-293-WF.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • April 8, 1988
    ... ...          Id. § 2.142(a) at p. 173. (emphasis added) ...         Thus, the policy is satisfied as long as authorization from the appropriate Assistant Attorney General is obtained, prior to commencement of trial, and not simply prior to indictment ... ...
  • Ex parte Monk
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1989
    ...505 So.2d 1246 (Ala.1986); Ex parte Kimberly, 463 So.2d 1109 (Ala.1984); Ex parte Watkins, 509 So.2d 1064 (Ala.1984); Kircheis v. Long, 425 F.Supp. 505 (S.D.Ala.1976), affirmed, 564 F.2d 414 (5th Cir.1977). See also: the dissent in Ex parte Bradley, 494 So.2d 772 (Ala.1986), cert. denied, 4......
  • United States v. McCrane, Crim. No. 74-180.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • August 8, 1977
    ...v. Paderick, 541 F.2d 447 (4th Cir. 1976); United States ex rel. Annunziato v. Manson, 425 F.Supp. 1272 (D.Conn.1977); Kircheis v. Long, 425 F.Supp. 505 (D.Ala. 1976); Moynahan v. Manson, 419 F.Supp. 1139 (D.Conn.1976); cf. United States v. McCrane, 547 F.2d at 207. The information allegedl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT