U.S. ex rel. Cooper v. Warden, Illinois State Penitentiary, Pontiac Branch

Decision Date29 November 1977
Docket NumberNo. 77-1025,77-1025
PartiesUNITED STATES of America ex rel. Raymond COOPER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, ILLINOIS STATE PENITENTIARY, PONTIAC BRANCH, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Robert P. Isaacson, Asst. Public Defender, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner-appellant.

Gerri Papushkewych, Asst. Atty. Gen., Springfield, Ill., William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for respondent-appellee.

Before FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge, PELL, Circuit Judge, and KUNZIG, * Judge.

KUNZIG, Judge.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in the district court which denied Petitioner-Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant bases his appeal, as he did his original petition, on the assertion that he was mentally incompetent to comprehend his Miranda warnings and that his confession, rendered after his Miranda rights had been properly explained, had been erroneously admitted into evidence at his original state court trial. The district court found Appellant's reasoning unconvincing and entered summary judgment for the Respondent-Appellee. We affirm.

Raymond Cooper (Appellant) was convicted, after a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County, of murder, robbery, and burglary and sentenced to serve fourteen to eighteen years in prison for his participation in the killing of a Chicago woman, which occurred while he and his cohorts were burglarizing her home on September 28, 1970. The evidence at trial included a statement by Cooper describing how he had "grabbed (the woman) from behind" as she entered her kitchen door and held her while an accomplice wrapped a towel around her face to keep her from screaming. The woman was strangled.

Cooper had moved to suppress this statement on grounds that he was mentally incompetent to comprehend the Miranda warnings which he had admittedly been given prior to any police questioning and prior to his statement. He argued that the uncontradicted testimony of expert witnesses established that he could not have understood his Miranda warnings in the form in which they were given and that any asserted waiver of his Miranda rights should, therefore, not be considered knowing and intelligent. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 475, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Cooper made this argument at the original motion to suppress, which was denied, on appeal to the Appellate Court of Illinois, which affirmed his conviction, People v. Cooper, 30 Ill.App.3d 326, 332 N.E.2d 453 (1975), and to the Illinois Supreme Court, which denied his petition for leave to appeal, without opinion, on November 24, 1975. His petition for a writ of certiorari was also denied. Cooper v. Illinois, 425 U.S. 994, 96 S.Ct. 2206, 48 L.Ed.2d 818 (1976). Cooper again made the same argument in the district court habeas corpus proceedings. Judge Kirkland found no justifiable reason to upset the completed state court process. Nor do we.

Far from being "uncontradicted," the testimony of Cooper's own expert witnesses (two psychologists and one psychiatrist) was inconclusive, equivocal, and contained its own contradictions. The record of this testimony supports the conclusions that (1) although Cooper had a low I.Q. and was "not spontaneous," he was able to " . . . go through and read this (his Miranda rights) himself and understand (his Miranda rights) himself as a whole"; (2) he responded "quickly and directly," and (3) he could "read and understand" his Miranda rights if he were helped and "if he took the time." 1

More importantly, Cooper's own behavior and actions when he testified at the suppression hearing were clearly discernible to the trial judge. Cooper himself never claimed not to have understood his Miranda rights and the record shows that he was able to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Mata v. Sumner
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • January 20, 1983
    ...discussed. 1 See United States ex rel. Jones v. Franzen, 676 F.2d 261, 264-65 (7th Cir.1982). See also United States v. Warden, Illinois State Penitentiary, 566 F.2d 28, 30 (7th Cir.1977) (a federal In the remainder of this portion of my dissent I shall analyze the record in a manner consis......
  • Paleteria La Michoacana, Inc. v. Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. De C.V., Civil Action No.: 11–1623 (RC)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 30, 2017
  • Fairchild v. Lockhart, PB-C-85-282.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • April 4, 1989
    ...his understanding the nature and significance of his constitutional rights." 595 F.2d at 411. The facts in United States ex rel. Cooper v. Warden, 566 F.2d 28 (7th Cir.1977), were that defendant had a low IQ and was not spontaneous. On the other hand, defendant's own experts testified that ......
  • U.S. v. Yunis
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • November 17, 1988
    ...fifth-grade education, he demonstrated in court he could read and discuss the warnings); United States ex rel. Cooper v. Warden, Illinois State Penitentiary, 566 F.2d 28, 30 (7th Cir.1977) (defendant, though having a low I.Q., "could 'read and understand' his Miranda rights if he were helpe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT