Knight v. People

• Citation: 60 F. Supp. 164
• Decision Date: 12 April 1945
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 5059.
• Parties: KNIGHT v. PEOPLE et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

60 F. Supp. 164

KNIGHT v. PEOPLE et al.

Civ. No. 5059.

District Court, N. D. California, N. D.

April 12, 1945.

Harry Knight, in pro. per.

Robert W. Kenny, Atty. Gen., and James O. Reavis, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondents.

WELSH, District Judge.

Facts.

Petitioner is in the California State Prison at Folsom. His petition recites that he was committed thereto pursuant to a commitment issued by the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles. A jury in said court found him guilty on one count for robbery, another for assault to commit murder, and a third charge of being an habitual criminal.

Petitioner claims that he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty in violation of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. His claim of lack of due process is predicated upon three points: (1) that he was convicted upon perjured testimony; (2) misconduct of the District Attorney; and (3) misconduct of the trial judge.

Petitioner has raised the same points heretofore in a similar petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the courts of the State of California. He filed such petition on or about the 23rd day of January, 1943, in the California Supreme Court. It was transferred to the District Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District, Ex parte Knight, Civ.1849, which court issued an order to show cause; the Attorney General of California filed an answer to said order on behalf of the Warden of Folsom State Prison; a hearing was had and briefs were filed. The writ was discharged. A petition for a re-hearing was filed and denied.

Petitioner herein referred to said proceeding in the State court and stated that he was unable to include all of his supporting documents. This court has, therefore, examined the files in said matter. The tes- timony therein consists of 815 pages which have been read.

Said files disclose that petitioner raised the same points in the State court that he raises here, and based them on the same exhibits. His principal reliance is based on an affidavit of one Alvin Cowart, who was a witness for the prosecution. Said affidavit purports to repudiate his testimony given at the trial. Affiant sets forth that the defendant did not commit the crime, that affiant was persuaded to testify to defendant's guilt by the Deputy District Attorney and that said attorney paid him the sum of approximately $100 as an inducement for his testimony.

The Deputy District Attorney filed a counter-affidavit wherein he specifically denied the charges. A clerk in the District Attorney's office who had charge of the financial division made an affidavit wherein she set forth the dates on which six checks totaling $56 were issued to said witness for the purpose of enabling him to subsist until the date of the trial. Counter-affidavits of deputy sheriffs and others also appear in the record.

It is significant that petitioner made a motion for a new trial in connection wherewith the same affidavit of the same witness Cowart was used. His motion for a new trial was denied and an appeal taken. The transcript of said appeal in Re Knight, Criminal No. 3429, in the District Court of Appeal of the State of California, discloses that the same questions as were subsequently raised in the same court on habeas corpus and now raised herein, were fully argued and considered in connection with said appeal.

The opinion in People v. Knight, 44 Cal. App.2d 887, 113 P.2d 226, disposed of the defendant's appeal on its merits. The opinion in Ex parte Knight, 62 Cal.App.2d 582, 144 P.2d 882, disposed of petitioner's contentions with reference to unlawful restraint of his liberty.

Questions

Should this court now grant a writ of habeas corpus to petitioner when he

(a) as a defendant in a trial court of the State of California, was convicted by a jury, made a motion for a new trial based on the same grounds and supported by the same documents as urged and presented herein, which motion for new trial was denied?

(b) appealed from his judgment of conviction in the State Court, and his conviction has been affirmed by the highest court in said State?

(c) filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Appellate Court of the State, again on the same grounds and based on the same documents, which court denied his petition?

(d) has been denied certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States.

These questions can all be answered in the negative.

The petition recites specifically: "That prior to the date hereof * * * petitioner applied to and invoked the original jurisdiction of the District Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, for a writ of habeas corpus on the same grounds as set forth in this petition * * * which said application was denied by said Court * * * thereafter * * * your petitioner made application to the Supreme Court of the State of California for a writ of habeas corpus on the same grounds as set forth in this petition * * * which said application was denied by said Supreme Court * * * whereupon petitioner made application to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari * * * and said application was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States."

It thus appears from the face of the petition itself that the writ prayed for should not be granted by this court. Petitioner has had the same material as that now submitted herein considered by the justices of two California Appellate Courts and of the Supreme Court of the United States. It would be contrary to sound and well-established policy for this court to hold otherwise than has already been held with reference to petitioner's claims.

Mr. Justice Brewer, sitting on the Circuit, said of applications of this kind that the federal courts "* * * should not be covetous, but miserly, of jurisdiction. * * * Especially is that true of cases in which the state is attempting, in its own courts, to enforce its statutes, designed for the peace and good order of its citizens." State of Kansas v. Bradley, C.C., 26 F. 289, 292.

Petitioner has filed an affidavit wherein he recites that it has been necessary to refer to testimony contained in the reporter's and clerk's transcripts on appeal in People v. Knight, Criminal No. 3429, in the District Court of Appeal of the State of California, 2nd District, and requests this court to issue an order directing the clerk of said District Court of Appeal to forward the record of said case. He states in his petition for a writ herein that the originals of affidavits made a part of said petition are in the files of said District Court of Appeal. Said petition also refers to criminal proceeding No. 1849 in the District Court of Appeal of the State of California, 3rd Appellate District.

This court has examined the records in both of said actions so referred to by petitioner. It has also analyzed carefully the opinions of said courts in said matters.

In People v. Knight, 44 Cal.App.2d 887, 113 P.2d 226, the conviction of petitioner herein was affirmed. Mr. Justice Wood sets forth therein the facts with particularity which shows a careful analysis of the testimony. He concludes (page 891 of 44 Cal.App.2d, page 228 of 113 P.2d): "The contention of defendant that the evidence is insufficient to justify the conviction is devoid of merit. Defendant was identified as the robber by two witnesses, whose testimony is supported by a number of circumstances, including circumstances in addition to those above set forth, from which inferences of guilt could be reasonably deduced."

Regarding the charge of prior conviction of a felony the court said (page 893 of 44 Cal.App.2d, page 229 of 113 P.2d): "The court discharged its duty as required by section 1078 of the Penal Code and in doing so presented the issues to the jury in a manner which was fair to defendant."

The court further said (page 894 of 44 Cal.App.2d, page 230 of 113 P.2d): "A number of instances are cited by defendant in which he claims that the prosecutor was guilty of prejudicial misconduct." With reference to one such it said: "In view of the court's admonition we are satisfied that no prejudice was suffered by defendant."

As to others, the court said (page 895 of 44 Cal.App.2d, page 230 of 113 P.2d): "Some of the instances of alleged misconduct resulted directly and naturally from statements which had been made by defense counsel. Other assignments of misconduct on the part of the prosecutor were, except in instances where they were without merit, followed by the admonition of the trial court to the jury to disregard them. They are not of such nature as to furnish grounds sufficient to justify a reversal of the judgment."

Said court answers the contention that the trial judge was guilty of misconduct by saying: "The record fails to bear out this assertion but it discloses a commendable effort on the part of the judge to conduct the trial in an orderly manner."

This phase of the case was thus given ample consideration by the District Court of Appeal at Los Angeles. We agree with the views expressed by said court.

The District Court of Appeal of the State of California, 3rd Appellate District, at Sacramento, rendered an opinion Ex parte Knight, 62 Cal.App.2d 582, 144 P.2d 882, 884, wherein it passed on the same questions which petitioner raises herein. This court concurs with the following views of said State court:

"Also the trial court, which had heard the testimony of this witness (Alvin Cowart) at the trial, apparently was not impressed by it when it was presented on motion for a new trial. * * *

"A presumption of regularity applies to a judgment of the trial court when it is attacked on habeas corpus, and the writ may not be used to serve the purposes of an appeal. * * *

"We are of the opinion that petitioner has failed to show that he was convicted upon perjured testimony, or, if Cowart's testimony was perjured, then it was knowingly employed...