Pyle v. State of Kansas
| Decision Date | 07 December 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 50,50 |
| Citation | 317 U.S. 213,63 S.Ct. 177,87 L.Ed. 214 |
| Parties | PYLE v. STATE OF KANSAS et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Joseph P. Tumulty, Jr., of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Jay Kyle, of Topeka, Kan., for respondents.
Petitioner seeks to review an order of the Supreme Court of Kansas denying his application for writ of habeas corpus.In 1953petitioner was convicted by a jury in a Kansas state court upon an information charging him with the crimes of murder and robbery.A motion for a new trial was overruled, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment under his conviction for murder, and to a term of from 10 to 21 years for robbery.On appeal the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Kansas.State v. Pyle, 143 Kan. 772, 57 P.2d 93.
On November 20, 1941, petitioner, a layman acting in his own behalf, filed an original application for writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Kansas.The crude allegations of this application charge that his imprisonment was the result of a deprivation of rights guaranteed him by the Constitution of the United States, in that the Kansas prosecuting authorities obtained his conviction by the presentation of testimony known to be perjured, and by the suppression of testimony favorable to him.Filed with this application were a brief and an abstract, also apparently prepared by petitioner himself, which are part of the record before us.These documents elaborate the general charges of the application, and specifically allege that 'one Truman Reynolds and coerced and threatened by the State to testify falsely against the petitioner and that said testimony did harm to the petitioner's defense'; that 'one Lacy Cunningham who had been previously committed to a mental institution was threatened with prosecution if he did not testify for the State'; that the testimony of one Roy Riley, material to petitioner's defense, 'was repressed under threat and coercion by the State'; that Mrs. Roy Riley and Mrs. Thelma Richardson were intimidated and their testimony suppressed; and, that the record in the trial of one Merl Hudson for complicity in the same murder and robbery for which petitioner was convicted, held about six months after petitioner's direct appeal from his conviction, reveals that the evidence there presented is inconsistent with the evidence presented at petitioner's trial, and clearly exonerates petitioner.
Certain exhibits accompanied the application; among these were copies, sworn by petitioner to be true and correct copies of the originals, of an affidavit executed by Truman Reynolds in 1940, and a letter dated February 28, 1941, from the former prosecuting attorney who represented the State at petitioner's trial.The affidavit contained a statement that affiant 'was forced to give perjured testimony against Harry Pyle under threat by local authorities at St. John, Kansas and the Kansas State Police, of a penitentiary sentence for burglary if I did not testify against Mr. Pyle'.The letter stated, 'Your conviction was a grave mistake', and further that, 'The evidence at the trial of Murl Hudson certainly shattered the conclusions drawn from the evidence produced at your trial.'
In connection with his application petitioner moved for the appointment of counsel to represent him, for subpoenas duces tecum to bring up the records in the trials of Merl Hudson and one Bert (Bud) Richardson, for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Imbler v. Craven
...U.S. 28, 78 S.Ct. 103, 2 L.Ed.2d 9 (1957); Hysler v. Florida, 315 U.S. 411, 62 S.Ct. 688, 86 L.Ed. 932 (1942); Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 63 S.Ct. 177, 87 L.Ed. 214 (1942); Evans v. Eyman, 363 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. There is no doubt that false testimony was given at petitioner's trial ......
-
Ass'n for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court of L.A. Cnty.
...using evidence that the prosecutor knows to be false. ( Mooney , at pp. 112-113, 55 S.Ct. 340 ; see also Pyle v. State of Kansas (1942) 317 U.S. 213, 216, 63 S.Ct. 177, 87 L.Ed. 214.) A prosecutor must correct false evidence "when it appears." ( Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264, 269, 7......
-
Theodor v. Superior Court, Orange County
...perjury in the affidavits on which a search warrant was issued is a question on which we express no opinion. (Cf. Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 216, 63 S.Ct. 177, 87 L.Ed. 214; Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112-113, 55 S.Ct. 340, 79 L.Ed. 791; In re Imbler, supra, 60 Cal.2d 554, 560, 35 ......
-
State v. Martin
...with the rudimentary demands of justice as is the obtaining of a like result by intimidation.’"In Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 215–216[, 63 S.Ct. 177, 87 L.Ed. 214 (1942) ], we phrased the rule in broader terms:" ‘Petitioner's papers ... set forth allegations that his imprisonment resulted......
-
Conditional Rules in Criminal Procedure: Alice in Wonderland Meets the Constitution
...earlier 66. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985). 67. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935). 68. Id at 112. 69. Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213 (1942). 70. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). 2010] CONDITIONAL RULES IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 439 decisions, but about something in the w......
-
THE REASONABLENESS OF THE "REASONABLENESS" STANDARD OF HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW UNDER THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996.
...(ruling that due process forbids a prosecutor from knowingly allowing a witness's perjury to go uncorrected at trial); Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 215-16 (1942) (ruling that due process forbids a prosecutor from intentionally using perjured testimony to convict a defendant); cf. Brady v. ......
-
CHAPTER 5 PROSECUTORS, POLICE, AND PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
...There has been no deviation from that established principle. Napue v. People of State of Illinois, 360 U.S. 264; Pyle v. State of Kansas, 317 U.S. 213. There can be no retreat from that principle here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further pro......
-
Getting out of this mess: steps toward addressing and avoiding inordinate delay in capital cases.
...law. Durley v. Mayo, 351 U.S. 277, 290-91 (1956) (Douglas, J., dissenting) (citing Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935); Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213 (1942)); see also Sanders v. Sullivan, 863 F.2d 218 (2d Cir. (149) See Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578 (1988) (death sentence vacated ......