Thompson v. Tahash
| Decision Date | 07 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-67-Civ-209.,3-67-Civ-209. |
| Citation | 286 F. Supp. 663 |
| Parties | T. Eugene THOMPSON, Petitioner, v. Ralph TAHASH, Warden, Minnesota State Prison, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Ronald I. Meshbesher, Minneapolis, Minn., for petitioner.
Petitioner, an inmate of the Minnesota State Prison at Stillwater, under a sentence of life imprisonment imposed on December 6, 1963 for first degree murder, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming violation of his federal constitutional rights. Following a plea of not guilty, a jury found him guilty of murdering his wife. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed his conviction on January 18, 1966, State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 139 N.W.2d 490 (see also 266 Minn. 385, 123 N.W.2d 378).
The United States Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari on October 10, 1966. 385 U.S. 817, 87 S.Ct. 39, 17 L.Ed.2d 56.
Petitioner was represented by counsel at every stage of the proceedings.
Petitioner alleges several grounds in support of his claimed unlawful custody. He claims that prejudicial publicity prevented his obtaining a fair trial, hearsay testimony was improperly received against him, the prosecutor used illegally obtained evidence, he was wrongfully denied a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence, and the prosecutor knowingly used perjured testimony against him, which the Petitioner denominates as subornation of perjury.1
It appears from the petition that the Petitioner has not filed a post-conviction petition in the state court under the Habeas Corpus Act, by way of coram nobis, or otherwise.
Although the Petitioner alleges that he has exhausted his available state court remedies it should be noted that since the petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on October 10, 1966, the Minnesota Legislature has enacted a comprehensive post-conviction remedy which is now available to him. Laws 1967, Ch. 336, M.S.A. § 590.01 et seq. It provides for relief from the violation of a convicted person's rights under the United States Constitution such as is here claimed by the Petitioner. Provision is made for an evidentiary hearing where required. M.S.A. § 590.04. The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that the rules governing the grant or denial of an evidentiary hearing should be substantially comparable to those which afford state prisoners a trial-type hearing in the federal courts. State ex rel. Roy v. Tahash, 277 Minn. 238, 152 N.W.2d 301 (1967). Appeal is available to the Minnesota Supreme Court. M.S.A. § 590.06.
It thus appears that the Petitioner does have an available and effective state court process through which to obtain adjudication of the claimed wrongs. The entertaining of a federal habeas corpus application is made contingent upon a showing of an absence of adequate state relief. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254.
The federal courts may not, with propriety, impinge upon the prerogatives of the state courts. The rules of comity require us to stay our hand in situations of this kind in order to allow the state courts every opportunity to administer their criminal laws and procedure in a light becoming to the current Constitutional standards applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed. 2d 837; Roach v. Bennett, Eighth Circuit, April 15, 1968, 392 F.2d 743; Baines v. Swenson, 8 Cir., 384 F.2d 621 (1967).
The Court of Appeals for this Circuit has observed in an analogous fact situation that:
"* * * as a matter of appropriate federal-state relationship and fitting judicial deference in this special situation, the federal courts ordinarily, before entertaining an application by a state prisoner for federal habeas corpus relief, should require him to again seek consideration and determination of his claims of constitutional violation under the state's collateral-attack remedy, in order to give the state courts the opportunity to examine and deal with such claims * * *." Emphasis supplied by court in Baines, supra.
Donnell v. Nash, 8 Cir., 323 F.2d 850, 851; see also Barry v. Sigler, 373 F.2d 835 (8th Cir. 1967); Cyronne-de Virgin v. State of Missouri, 341 F.2d 468 (8th Cir.1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 895, 86 S.Ct. 189, 15 L.Ed.2d 151; Ellenson v. Fugate, 346 F.2d 151 (8th Cir. 1965); Dabney v. Sigler, 345 F.2d 710 (8th Cir. 1965); and United States ex rel. Laino v. Wallack, 231 F.Supp. 733 (S.D.N.Y. 1964).
These principles are particularly applicable here where, it appears, a principal thrust of the petition is directed to the claimed prejudicial publicity before and during the trial which deprived the defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. It will be recalled that the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision was rendered on January 18, 1966, some six months before the United States Supreme Court decision in Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, so that the Minnesota courts have not had an opportunity to pass on Petitioner's claims dealing with prejudicial publicity tainting the community and the trial in the light of the Supreme Court's landmark pronouncements in Sheppard.
That decision substantially altered previously held judicial views in this field, including the wide range of discretion previously afforded the trial court's determinations. Now appellate courts are obligated "* * * to make an independent evaluation of the circumstances * * *," clearly implying a de novo examination of the prejudicial publicity issue. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 362, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1522. See Maine v. Superior Court of Mendocino County; Braun v. Superior Court of Mendocino County, Supreme Court of California, March 18, 1968, 66 Cal.Rptr. 724, 438 P.2d 372.
While the petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on October 10, 1966, after Sheppard, such a denial may not properly be viewed as a ruling on the merits of the claims. United States v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482, 490, 43 S.Ct. 181, 182, 67 L.Ed. 361.
Our subscription to the rules of comity is made more compelling in this case because it appears from the petition, from an examination of the Minnesota Supreme Court decision, and from all of the court records made available to us by the attorney for the Petitioner, that each of the grounds claimed as a basis for habeas corpus relief here was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. McManus
...the application premature for failure to exhaust available state remedies, the petition was dismissed without prejudice. Thompson v. Tahash, D.C., 286 F.Supp. 663 (1968). Thereafter, proceedings for post-conviction relief were commenced in state court pursuant to Minn.Stat. 590.01 et seq. A......
- Broadus-Bey v. United States
-
Thompson v. Zurich Insurance Company
...proceedings were filed in this court but dismissed for failure on Thompson's part to exhaust his State court remedies. Thompson v. Tahash, 286 F.Supp. 663 (D.Minn. 1968). Such proceedings are now pending in State court. Thompson stated at the hearing before this court that he has appealed o......
-
Thompson v. McManus
...habeas corpus , but the action was premature and was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. Thompson v. Tahash, 286 F.Supp. 663 (D.Minn.1968). Thereafter, lengthy post-conviction relief hearings were held, but relief was denied. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirm......