Thomas v. Eyman, 15098.

• Citation: 235 F.2d 775
• Decision Date: 12 September 1956
• Docket Number: No. 15098.,15098.
• Parties: Arthur THOMAS, Appellant, v. Frank EYMAN, Superintendent of the State Prison of Arizona, Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

235 F.2d 775 (1956)

Arthur THOMAS, Appellant, v. Frank EYMAN, Superintendent of the State Prison of Arizona, Appellee.

No. 15098.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

August 8, 1956.

Rehearing Denied September 12, 1956.

W. Edward Morgan, Tucson, Ariz., for appellant.

Robert Morrison, Atty. Gen., James H. Green, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Wes Polley, Cochise County Atty., Bisbee, for appellee.

Before MATHEWS, POPE and LEMMON, Circuit Judges.

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

On March 16 or 17, 1953, Janie Miskovich was murdered in Cochise County, Arizona. Thereafter, on March 17, 1953, her body was found, an investigation was made, and appellant, Arthur Thomas, was arrested in Cochise County by Jack Howard, sheriff of that county. On March 18, 1953, the sheriff took appellant before a magistrate — L. T. Frazier, a justice of the peace in Cochise County — for preliminary examination; appellant waived such examination; the magistrate held appellant to answer to the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for Cochise County and fixed his bail at $25,000; and, appellant having failed to furnish bail, the magistrate committed him to the custody of the sheriff.¹

Thereafter, in the Superior Court, an information was filed charging appellant with the murder.² Appellant was arraigned, pleaded not guilty and had a jury trial. The trial began on June 1, 1953, and ended on June 19, 1953, when the jury returned a verdict finding appellant guilty of first-degree murder and fixing his punishment at death.³ Appellant moved for a new trial. The motion was denied on June 26, 1952. Thereupon, on June 26, 1953, the Superior Court rendered judgment on the verdict, sentenced appellant to death and issued a warrant directing the sheriff to deliver appellant to the superintendent of the State prison of Arizona for execution.⁴ The sheriff did so deliver appellant on or before July 6, 1953. At all times thereafter, appellant was a prisoner in the superintendent's custody pursuant to the Superior Court's judgment.

Appellant appealed from the Superior Court's judgment to the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona, hereafter called the Arizona Supreme Court. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment on October 18, 1954.⁵ Appellant moved the Arizona Supreme Court for a rehearing. The Arizona Supreme Court denied that motion on November 16, 1954. On December 2, 1954, appellant filed in the Superior Court a second motion for a new trial.⁶ The Superior Court made an order denying that motion on December 18, 1954. Appellant appealed from that order to the Arizona Supreme Court. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed that order on June 28, 1955.⁷ Appellant petitioned for certiorari to review both decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court — the decision affirming the Superior Court's judgment⁸ and the decision affirming the Superior Court's order denying appellant's second motion for a new trial.⁹ Certiorari was denied on January 16, 1956.¹⁰

Thereafter, in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, W. Edward Morgan, acting in behalf of appellant,¹¹ filed two applications¹² — one on March 1, 1956, and one on March 9, 1956 — each praying for a writ of habeas corpus directed to appellee, Frank Eyman, who, on March 1, 1956, and at all times thereafter, was superintendent of the State prison of Arizona.¹³

The District Court did not at any time grant appellant a writ of habeas corpus or issue an order directing appellee to show cause why such a writ should not be granted,¹⁴ nor did it hold a plenary hearing on the applications. However appellee's counsel appeared before the District Court and, on March 9, 1956, filed with the District Court a transcript¹⁵ of all proceedings had and all testimony taken in the Superior Court¹⁶ and copies of all briefs filed in the Arizona Supreme Court on appellant's appeal from the Superior Court's judgment. Having considered the applications, the transcript, the briefs and the Arizona Supreme Court's decision affirming the Superior Court's judgment,¹⁷ the District Court on March 13, 1956, entered an order denying the applications. From that order appellant has appealed.

Appellant contends that the District Court erred in denying the applications without granting a writ of habeas corpus or issuing an order to show cause and without a plenary hearing.

Appellant being a State prisoner, the District Court could not properly grant him a writ of habeas corpus unless it appeared that he was in custody in violation of the Constitution of the United States.¹⁸

In determining whether appellant was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, it was proper for the District Court to consider — as it did — the transcript of proceedings had and testimony taken at appellant's trial, the briefs filed on appellant's appeal from the Superior Court's judgment and the Arizona Supreme Court's decision affirming that judgment, as well as the applications.¹⁹

The first application — the one filed on March 1, 1956 — stated that "on the date of apprehension,²⁰ appellant was roped and putitively sic lynched in the presence of Jack Howard, the then sheriff of Cochise County;" that "subsequent to said roping, and while under fear and coercion, appellant made * * * confessions of commission of the crime;"²¹ and that "one of said confessions, over the objection of counsel,²² was admitted into evidence,²³ * * * in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Liberally construed, these statements may be taken to mean that an involuntary confession of appellant was admitted into evidence at his trial in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus the first application may be deemed to have raised a Federal constitutional issue, namely, whether the Fourteenth Amendment was so violated. No other Federal constitutional issue was raised in or by either of the applications.

The transcript showed the following facts:

The only "confession" admitted into evidence at appellant's trial was an oral statement made by him on March 18, 1953, when he was taken before the magistrate (L. T. Frazier) for preliminary examination. That statement, hereafter called the confession, was admitted into evidence by the admission of the magistrate's testimony concerning it. That testimony was as follows:

"He appellant was there on the charge of murder. I read the complaint to him and told him that he had a right to a preliminary hearing in the justice court,²⁴ or he might waive that right and have his hearing in the Superior Court. I told him he had the right to employ an attorney to assist him in preparing his case, and that he would be allowed a reasonable length of time for the preliminary hearing, and he said, `I don't need any lawyer. I am guilty. I killed the woman."²⁵

Prior to the admission of the above quoted testimony, evidence was presented in the absence of the jury on the issue of the voluntariness of the confession, and, as a preliminary matter, the Superior Court held that it was voluntary.²⁶ Thereafter evidence on the issue of voluntariness was presented to the jury, the above quoted testimony was admitted, and the issue of voluntariness was submitted to the jury with appropriate instructions.²⁷

On his appeal from the Superior Court's judgment, appellant assigned as error the admission of the above quoted testimony, his contention²⁸ being that its admission violated the Fourteenth Amendment, (1) in that the confession shown by the testimony was a plea of guilty which he had entered when taken before the magistrate for preliminary examination and had withdrawn by pleading not guilty in the Superior Court; and (2) in that the confession was involuntary.

Rejecting appellant's contention, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the confession was not a plea of guilty, there being in Arizona no such thing as an arraignment or a plea of guilty or not guilty in a preliminary examination; that the above quoted testimony was properly admitted; and that the issue of the voluntariness of the confession was properly submitted to the jury.²⁹

Thus the Arizona Supreme Court determined adversely to appellant the only Federal constitutional issue raised in the habeas corpus proceeding. The District Court accepted that determination as correct. Hence the District Court was not required to grant a writ of habeas corpus or to issue a show cause order or to hold a plenary hearing.³⁰

Order affirmed.

POPE, Circuit Judge.

I concur. What convinces me that the court below did not err in exercising its discretion to accept the State court's resolution of the fact issues involved is the admirable manner in which the State trial judge dealt with what the Arizona Supreme Court called the "unsavory incidents" which attended petitioner's apprehension and arrest.

It is apparent that the trial judge believed the testimony of a State Highway patrolman that the county sheriff not only stood by while petitioner and another prisoner in his custody were roped about the neck and dragged by mounted members of a mob, but that he even said to petitioner "Will you tell the truth, or I will let them go ahead and do this," or "I will go ahead and let them use this."¹

By a ruling which, it must be conceded, was in accordance with the highest traditions of the bench, the trial judge held that the effects of this misconduct on the part of the sheriff were such that a confession taken from Thomas the following day by the county attorney, and a confession taken two days later at the county attorney's office, must both be rejected and excluded as coerced and involuntary. It was prior to the taking of either of these rejected confessions that Thomas was taken before the magistrate where he admitted his guilt. The argument is, that if Thomas were so terrorized by the officially condoned threats of lynching that his later confession in the county attorney's office could not be voluntary, then his statement to the magistrate, which...