Ralph v. Pepersack, Civ. No. 13693.

• Decision Date: 13 April 1962
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 13693.
• Citation: 203 F. Supp. 752
• Parties: William RALPH v. Vernon PEPERSACK, Warden, Maryland State Penitentiary.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

203 F. Supp. 752

William RALPH v.Vernon PEPERSACK, Warden, Maryland State Penitentiary.

Civ. No. 13693.

United States District Court D. Maryland.

April 13, 1962.

Edward L. Genn, Silver Spring, Md., and Lawrence Speiser, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., of Maryland, and Robert F. Sweeney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Md., for respondent.

THOMSEN, Chief Judge.

The Attorney General of Maryland, representing respondent, seeks dismissal of this petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the petition is premature in that petitioner has not exhausted his State remedies, particularly those under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act (UPCPA), Md.Code, Art. 27, sec. 645A-645J.On the other hand, counsel for petitioner argues that the Maryland courts have construed the UPCPA so narrowly that it is not really an available, effective remedy in this case.

Petitioner was convicted of rape and sentenced to death by three judges, sitting without a jury, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, on June 18, 1961.On appeal from that conviction he argued one proposition — "that the extra-judicial confession admitted in evidence over objection was not his free and voluntary act (i) because he had been questioned over a long period of time; (ii) because the confession was procured as the result of an inducement; and (iii) because the confession had been obtained as the result of physical violence on the part of the police."Ralph v. State, 226 Md. 480, 484, 174 A.2d 163, 165.The Court of Appeals considered each of these points, decided them against the defendant, and affirmed the judgment.The Supreme Court denied certiorari.Ralph v. Maryland, 369 U.S. 813, 82 S.Ct. 689.

Petitioner promptly filed the pending petition in this court, contending, upon facts alleged in the petition, that:

"a) The said confession was obtained by Federal officers, subject to Federal law, in violation of such law and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the said confession being the result of improper conduct by and a working arrangement between the said Federal officers and the State Police Officers for the State of Maryland, all in violation of your petitioner's constitutional rights under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

"b) The said confession extracted from your petitioner was as a result of improper actions of the Federal officers involved and was involuntary and was obtained in violation of your petitioner's constitutional rights under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

"c) The said restraint and detention is further unlawful in that evidence, including a confession, was obtained as a result of an illegal arrest, search and seizure, all in violation of your petitioner's constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

"d) Said detention and restraint is further unlawful in that your petitioner is now informed and verily believes that the items of evidence introduced at trial, particularly certain articles of clothing, were not obtained from petitioner's automobile, as the officers stated, but were obtained at his home in violation of your petitioner's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment, and the false testimony with respect to which, deprived petitioner of a fair trial in further violation of his constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment.

"e) The said restraint and detention is further unlawful, in that as a result of an unreasonable and unnecessary delay by Federal police officials in bringing petitioner before a committing Magistrate, Judge, or Commissioner to be advised of his rights and the charges against him, a confession was extracted from your petitioner in violation of his constitutional rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and under Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure18 U.S.C.A.."

At the oral argument on respondent's motion to dismiss, counsel for petitioner stated (1) that petitioner is relying on his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments as incorporated in the Fourteenth; (2) that he is relying in part upon what he calls the "reverse silver platter doctrine", really the rule in Rea v. United States, 350 U.S. 214, 76 S.Ct. 292, 100 L.Ed. 233;(3) that he did not intend to argue under d), supra, that the State's Attorney knowingly offered any false testimony, and (4) that his principal contention under e) is that the alleged violation of the rule in Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L. Ed.2d 1479, by the Federal officers prevents the use of the confession obtained by them, not that the Mallory rule is directly applicable to State proceedings.

Counsel for petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals of Maryland has held in a series of cases that points similar to those upon which he relies cannot be raised in UPCPA proceedings, but only on direct appeal; that if they are raised and fully considered on the original appeal they cannot be raised again; and that if they are not so raised they are waived.Cheeseboro v. Warden, 224 Md. 660, 168 A.2d 181;Hall v. Warden, 224 Md. 662, 168 A.2d 373;Roberts v. Warden, 223 Md. 638,...