Moorer v. State of South Carolina, Civ. A. No. AC-1583.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtMatthew J. Perry, Columbia, S. C., for petitioner
Citation240 F. Supp. 531
PartiesLouis MOORER, Petitioner, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA and Ellis C. MacDougall, Director, South Carolina State Board of Corrections, Respondents.
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. AC-1583.
Decision Date13 April 1965

240 F. Supp. 531

Louis MOORER, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA and Ellis C. MacDougall, Director, South Carolina State Board of Corrections, Respondents.

Civ. A. No. AC-1583.

United States District Court E. D. South Carolina, Columbia Division.

April 13, 1965.


Matthew J. Perry, Columbia, S. C., for petitioner.

240 F. Supp. 532

Everett N. Brandon, Edward B. Latimer and Thomas G. Earle, Asst. Attys. Gen., Columbia, S. C., for respondents.

HEMPHILL, Chief Judge.

Before this Court is the question of retention of jurisdiction of this cause, which petitioner desires, for purpose of continuing a stay of execution heretofore issued. Petitioner originally sought asylum of this forum by Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed November 30, 1964, and Petition for Stay of Execution of same date; at the time petitioner was detained and awaiting ordered execution, at the South Carolina State Penitentiary December 4, 1964. On December 1, 1964 this Court issued its order staying execution, and, on December 14, 1964, after hearing counsel for parties, continued the stay pending a determination of the issues involved. See Moorer v. South Carolina et al., 240 F.Supp. 529 (E.D.S.C. 1965).

On March 11, 1965 petitioner filed an amended petition stating: "Since these grounds as set forth in the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus were at no time presented to the Courts of South Carolina there may be some question concerning whether petitioner has exhausted his State judicial remedies." (Emphasis supplied.) He asked that further action be suspended in this forum until he could resort to the State Court. He also asked continuation of the Stay of Execution.

This Court, by decision of March 12, 1965, Moorer v. State of South Carolina et al., 239 F.Supp. 180 suspended further consideration and provided:

"The Stay of Execution shall continue only until the parties shall have had opportunity to show cause, if cause they have, why said stay should not be set aside and this Court's jurisdiction relinquished. Accordingly the counsel shall appear before me at Chambers, Columbia, South Carolina, at 11:00 A.M. Wednesday, March 31, 1965."

The history of this case may be of doubtful inspiration to those purportedly interested in justice, but it has been dragged through the courts, and continues so to be, to the disparagement, professional and secular, of the administration of justice. This Court would not for one moment discourage a complete exhaustion of remedies, but society deserves (indeed, should not society expect?) that a matter be terminated, that justice have some finality in our courts. The lack of finality therefore becomes one facet of our problem, definitely included in the spectrum of crime prevalence and prevention as it exists today. The President of the United States, in his message of March 8, 1965, to the Congress of the United States recognized the trend:

"Crime has become a malignant enemy in America's midst.
"Since 1940 the crime rate in this country has doubled. It has increased five times as fast as our population since 1958.
"In dollars the cost of crime runs to tens of billions annually. The human costs are simply not measurable.
"The problems run deep and will not yield to quick and easy answers. We must identify and eliminate the causes of criminal activity whether they lie in the environment around us or deep in the nature of individual men. This is a major purpose of all we are doing in combating poverty and improving education, health,
welfare, housing, and recreation.
"All these are vital, but they are not enough. Crime will not wait while we pull it up by the roots. We must arrest and reverse the trend toward lawlessness.
"This active combat against crime calls for a fair and efficient system of law enforcement to deal with those who break our laws. It means giving new priority to the methods and institutions of law enforcement —
240 F. Supp. 533
"to our police, who are our frontline, both offensive and defensive, in the fight against crime. There is a great need not only for improved training of policemen
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Moorer v. MacDougall
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 11, 1965
    ...defendant filed a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, 240 F.Supp. 531. We denied a stay of execution of such purpose, but a stay was granted by order of the Honorable Robert W. Hemphill, a Judge of said Court o......
1 cases
  • Moorer v. MacDougall
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 11, 1965
    ...defendant filed a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, 240 F.Supp. 531. We denied a stay of execution of such purpose, but a stay was granted by order of the Honorable Robert W. Hemphill, a Judge of said Court o......

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