Morris v. State of South Carolina, 10011
| Decision Date | 01 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 10011,10023.,10011 |
| Citation | 356 F.2d 432 |
| Parties | John MORRIS, Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA and Ellis C. MacDougall, Director, South Carolina State Board of Corrections, Appellees. Edward WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA and Ellis C. MacDougall, Director, South Carolina State Board of Corrections, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
James A. Hutto, Jr., Columbia, S. C. (Court-assigned counsel) Hutto & Hutto, Columbia, S. C., on brief, for appellant Morris.
Matthew J. Perry, Columbia, S. C. (Court-assigned counsel) Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., and Hemphill P. Pride, II, Columbia, S. C., on brief, for appellant Williams.
Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen. of South Carolina, and Edward B. Latimer, Asst. Atty. Gen. of South Carolina (J. C. Coleman, Asst. Atty. Gen. of South Carolina, John W. Foard, Jr., Sol., Fifth Judicial Circuit of South Carolina, on brief), for appellees.
Ronald P. Sokol, Charlottesville, Va., amicus curiæ.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF, BOREMAN, BRYAN and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges, sitting en banc.
In these companion cases writs of habeas corpus were sought upon the ground, among others, that their confessions were introduced in evidence against them in violation of their constitutional rights. The appeal in the Morris case was heard, after which we disposed of his other contentions but scheduled the case for reargument, along with the Williams case and several others which presented a miscellany of problems arising in connection with the application of Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. It now appears however, that the present record does not furnish an adequate basis for review of the decisions of the District Court.
Though there is internal evidence in the District Court's order that it had reviewed at least a portion of the transcript of the proceedings, in the trial court, the transcript of those proceedings is not a part of the record in these cases. Without it, we cannot determine the extent to which the record of the proceedings in the trial court supports the findings of the historical facts. Nor can we determine whether a full and fair hearing has been held in the state court, so as to afford a basis for the District Court's acceptance of the state court's findings.
We infer that there was no resolution of the underlying historical facts in the state trial court. Apparently, the District Court accepted the facts as recited by the Supreme Court of South Carolina in its opinion affirming the judgment of conviction.1 That recitation was made before the Supreme Court's decision in Escobedo, and the focus of attention in the Supreme Court of South Carolina was upon the claim that the confessions were coerced under standards generally accepted before Escobedo. Absence of advice of counsel was only tangentially involved in that inquiry.
For that reason, among others, the petitioners also claim that the District Court should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kinder v. Boles
...v. U. S. No. 10,007; Morris v. South Carolina No. 10,011; Williams v. South Carolina No. 10,023 now disposed of on other grounds in 356 F.2d 432; Timmons v. Peyton No. 10,042; Stevens v. Warden No. 10,098; Warden v. Ledbetter No. 10,154.) Since decisions on these cases are expected shortly,......
-
Smith v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, Civ. No. 16165.
...met all the tests set out in Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, at 313, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963). See also Morris v. State of South Carolina, 4 Cir., 356 F.2d 432 (1966). This Court concludes that it should accept the findings of fact made by Judge Carter. If those findings were not ......
-
Williams v. Leeke, 19303
...24, 13 L.Ed.2d 81. Subsequent habeas corpus proceedings in federal court, reported at Williams v. State, 237 F.Supp. 360 and Morris v. State, 356 F.2d 432, were ultimately suspended so that the appellants might exhaust their state remedies. Habeas corpus proceedings were begun in the court ......