Martin v. Hiatt, 12666.
| Decision Date | 25 May 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 12666.,12666. |
| Citation | 174 F.2d 350 |
| Parties | MARTIN v. HIATT, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Joe Freels Martin, of Atlanta, Ga., in prop. per.
Walter G. Cooper, of Atlanta, Ga., for amicus curiae Robt. Clayton St. Clair.
J. Ellis Mundy, U. S. Atty., and Harvey H. Tisinger, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before HOLMES, McCORD, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.
This is another of the more than 1500 petitions for habeas corpus that have been filed in recent years in the Atlanta Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, wherein release from the custody of the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta has been sought.
The petitioner here, who was sentenced to imprisonment for three years for violation of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 408 now §§ 2311-2313, by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleges that he was illegally held in custody without arraignment or bail from May 7 to May 21, 1948, contrary to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution; that between these dates petitioner was subjected to repeated and protracted questioning by members of the Kentucky State Highway Patrol and of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, during which "petitioner was threatened and coerced by use of reference to his past record and threatened reprisal against a young lady in company of petitioner at the time of his arrest"; that he was advised that if he would sign a confession, the young lady in question would be released and he would be given an early trial rather than having to wait until the October term of the Court; that petitioner took notice of this advice and having the welfare of the young lady in mind, as well as the threats of irrelevant matters, and being ignorant and untutored and without the advice of counsel or friends, he agreed to, and did, sign a confession, waive indictment, and plead guilty, in consequence of which he was sentenced. In short, he alleges violation of due process in being held without bail or arraignment between May 7 and May 21, 1948, and in being intimidated into signing a statement while being so held for such period.
The writ issued and upon final hearing the petitioner's application was denied and he was remanded to the custody of the respondent because of the failure of the petitioner to comply with Sec. 22551 of Title 28 U.S.C.A., which reads in part as follows:
* * * * * *
"An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention."
Petitioner, appealing here, asserts that Sec. 2255 is in violation of Article 1, Sec. 9, Clause 2, of the Federal Constitution, which provides that:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Concededly the great writ of habeas corpus has not been, and could not be, suspended by Congress in the absence of a rebellion or invasion, and the sole question presented to us is whether or not Sec. 2255 is tantamount to a suspension of the writ.
The great writ is of such antiquity that its origin is unknown, but from its inception as a writ designed to put people in jail rather than to get them out2 its status has been far from static.
No attempt will be made here to trace its development through the ages, but it is interesting to note that since the First Judiciary Act of 1789 the statutes have provided that judges of the Supreme and District Courts of the United States should have the right to issue writs of habeas corpus, etc., "which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law."3
From time immemorial it was thought that trial courts, State and Federal, had been invested with the primary duty of safeguarding the constitutional rights of defendants, and from the time of the enactment of the statute of 1789 until the present the courts have held in at least half a thousand cases that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for a writ of error or an appeal.
But for some reason, not readily discernible, there seems to have grown up the notion that final judgments in criminal trials in the lower courts should be attended by no favorable presumptions, and that only in the higher courts of the United States does constitutional justice really abide. In drawing to such courts the power through habeas corpus to supervise the "intrinsic fairness" of criminal trials4 in both State and Federal courts,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Hayman
...unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.' U.S.Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 2. 6 Martin v. Hiatt, 5 Cir., 1949, 174 F.2d 350, and Barrett v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 1950, 180 F.2d 510, 20 A.L.R.2d 965, have held expressly that Section 2255 is constitutional. Habeas......
-
Hayman v. United States
...in that situation he would be in a position to raise these questions. Such were Barrett v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 180 F.2d 510, and Martin v. Hiatt, 5 Cir., 174 F.2d 350. Appellant entered the court below expressly seeking the benefits of the section. He obtained the re-examination of the record ......
-
United States v. Kaplan
...Riccardi, 3 Cir., 188 F.2d 416; Pulliam v. United States, 10 Cir., 178 F. 2d 777; Barrett v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 180 F.2d 510; Martin v. Hiatt, 5 Cir., 174 F. 2d 350. 7 Meyers v. Welch, 4 Cir., 179 F.2d 707. 8 Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 236, 62 S.Ct. 280, 290, 86 L.Ed. 166. 9 Johnson......
-
Barrett v. Hunter, 3954
...Price v. Johnson, 334 U.S. 266, 296, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 92 L.Ed. 1356. 2 Pulliam v. United States, 10 Cir., 178 F. 2d 777. 3 Martin v. Hiatt, 5 Cir., 174 F.2d 350, 352. 4 Town of Clayton v. Colorado & S. Ry. Co., 10 Cir., 51 F.2d 977, 979, 82 A.L.R. 417; Board of Education, etc., v. Woodmen of ......