Lewis v. Peyton, 10116.
| Decision Date | 02 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 10116.,10116. |
| Citation | 352 F.2d 791 |
| Parties | Claude Jason LEWIS, Appellant, v. C. C. PEYTON, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Melvin R. Manning, Richmond, Va. (Court-assigned counsel) Simpkins, McCaul & Pearsall, Richmond, Va., on brief, for appellant.
Reno S. Harp, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Virginia (Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen., of Virginia, on brief), for appellee.
Before BRYAN and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges, and MARTIN, District Judge.
The petitioner appeals from a denial of the writ of habeas corpus. The facts show that court was convened in the Tazewell County Courthouse on August 21, 1961; that without any order of record, the judge, the prosecutor, the sheriff, court appointed defense counsel and the petitioner next appear at the home of the prosecutrix which was located near the Town of Pocahontas, an old and nearly abandoned mining village in a sparsely settled rural area of Virginia — some 25 to 30 miles from Tazewell. There, the judge (the petitioner had waived a jury) heard the testimony of the prosecutrix, who was 87 years old and bedridden; her nephew; and the accused, which was apparently all of the testimony taken in the case. There is uncontradicted testimony by the accused that neighbors were told to leave the tiny bedroom in order to make space for the court officials. The state concedes that the petitioner is of low intelligence and that "his comprehension of that which occurs is very poor." The petitioner was sentenced to serve thirty years in the Virginia State Penitentiary.
The Virginia statutes (Section 18.1-47 Code of Virginia) permit the taking of the deposition of a prosecutrix in a rape case in the discretion of the court by court order with the usual formalities. No order was entered in this case, and we cannot accept the belated contention that the conduct here indulged was a harmless substitute for that procedure.
Whatever may have been the intent of the parties, the fact remains that the defendant's trial for a capital offense violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which includes the Sixth's command that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial * * *." In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1947). The right to a public trial is not only to protect the accused but to protect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Cianfrani
...of a biased or corrupt judge: "for a secret trial can result in favor to as well as unjust prosecution of a defendant." Lewis v. Peyton, 352 F.2d 791, 792 (4th Cir. 1965). Thus a defendant may have great incentive to secure a secret hearing in hopes that a corrupt or incompetent judge might......
-
Gannett Co Inc v. Pasquale
...biased, or incompetent judge, "for a secret trial can result in favor to as well as unjust prosecution of a defendant." Lewis v. Peyton, 352 F.2d 791, 792 (CA4 1965). Open trials also enable the public to scrutinize the performance of police and prosecutors in the conduct of public judicial......
-
Houchins v. Kqed, Inc
...accused but to protect as much the public's right to know what goes on when men's lives and liberty are at stake . . . ." Lewis v. Peyton, 352 F.2d 791, 792 (CA4 1965). See also In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 270, 68 S.Ct. 499, 506, 92 L.Ed. 682: "The knowledge that every criminal trial is sub......
-
United States v. Lopez
...ability to peacefully settle disputes. In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 270, 68 S.Ct. 499, 506, n. 24, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948); Lewis v. Peyton, 352 F.2d 791, 792 (4th Cir. 1965); cf. Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 541, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1632, 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965); United States ex rel. Bennett v. Rund......
-
Gagging the Press Through Participant and Closure Orders: the Aftermath of Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart
...right to a fair trial, and anything that would truncate this right must be avoided." Id. at 3326. 81. See, e.g., Lewis v. Peyton, 352 F.2d 791 (4th Cir. 1965); United States v. General Motors Corp., 352 F. Supp. 1071 (E.D. Mich. 1973); United States ex rel. Mayberry v. Yeager, 321 F. Supp. ......