Pemberton v. Peyton
| Citation | 288 F. Supp. 920 |
| Decision Date | 12 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 5366. |
| Parties | Phillip Charles PEMBERTON, III v. C. C. PEYTON, etc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Phillip Charles Pemberton, III pro se.
Reno S. Harp, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Virginia, Va., for C. C. Peyton.
Phillip Charles Pemberton, III, a prissoner in the Virginia State Penitentiary, has petitioned this Court in forma pauperis for a writ of habeas corpus. He was convicted of arson in the Circuit Court of Prince William County in July 1966 and received a sentence of six years. In the only allegation touching his federal constitutional rights, Pemberton says that his confession was made involuntarily and was inadmissible against him. Pemberton has fully exhausted his available state remedies and the matter is properly before this Court for decision. 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The transcript of the state court proceeding has been filed herein and made a part of this record.
The record as made in the state court proceeding discloses that the defendant was taken to Winchester, Virginia, some sixty-five miles from his home, for the purpose of taking a lie detector test. The defendant knew, and so advised the officers, that a lie detector test could not be used against him in Virginia courts. There was a warrant of arrest out for the defendant at this time. It was not then served upon him—the state record is not clear whether the defendant knew of the existence of this warrant. The deputy fire marshal did not have knowledge of its existence. The lie detector test was not taken. Instead, the defendant was interrogated by a deputy fire marshal and a deputy sheriff of Prince William County concerning numerous fires that had been started in Prince William County. A statement was typed by the interrogators and signed by the defendant. It covers the defendant's and another person's participation in numerous fires. The statement further recites that no threats or promises were used against him and it is the truth—that he had been told he did not have to make any statement and that any statement he did make may be used in any court of law. He was also told "I may have a lawyer if I desire and may use the phone to call a lawyer or my family." The defendant did not have a lawyer at that time. He had previously discussed the matter "off the cuff" with a lawyer in his home town and had been told to keep his mouth shut.
The confession in question was taken on June 4, 1965. The defendant was furnished a court-appointed counsel on June 8, 1965. Several hearings were held thereafter re the admissibility of the confession in question—the defendant was sent to the Southwestern State Hospital for mental observation and the case was continued until his mental condition was determined. The trial began June 29, 1966.
The admissibility of the confession in question is controlled by the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cummings v. State
...family and friends tends to support a finding of custody. Commonwealth v. Sites, 427 Pa. 486, 235 A.2d 387 (1967); cf. Pemberton v. Peyton, 288 F.Supp. 920 (E.D.Va.1968). And see Zagel, op.cit., 24-25. There was simply no effort in the present case to sweep the appellant into an unfamiliar,......
-
Roberts v. State
...Cir.1969); United States v. Fox, 403 F.2d 97 (2d Cir.1968); United States v. Averell, 296 F.Supp. 1004 (E.D.N.Y.1969); Pemberton v. Peyton, 288 F.Supp. 920 (E.D.Va.1968); see also Brown v. Crosby, 249 F.Supp.2d 1285, 1302 (S.D.Fla.2003)(noting that advising the suspect of the right to have ......
-
State ex rel. Justice v. Allen, 21364
...the conviction. 39 Am.Jur.2d Habeas Corpus § 54 (1968). See also, Flournoy v. Peyton, 297 F.Supp. 727 (W.D.Va.1969); Pemberton v. Peyton, 288 F.Supp. 920 (E.D.Va.1968); Arthur v. McKenzie, 161 W.Va. 747, 245 S.E.2d 852 During the proceedings in the present case, substantial evidence was add......