United States ex rel. Mayberry v. Yeager
Decision Date | 07 January 1971 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 605-69. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Bobby L. MAYBERRY, Petitioner, v. Howard D. YEAGER, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Powell, Davis, Dietz & Colsey, by Eugene T. Radcliffe, Mount Holly, N. J., court appointed, for petitioner.
Martin J. Queenan, Burlington County Pros., Myron H. Gottlieb, Asst. Pros., on the brief, for respondent.
Petitioner, Bobby L. Mayberry, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241, et seq., attacking the legality of his confinement in the New Jersey State Prison, as a result of his conviction by a jury of robbery (N.J.S.A. 2A:141-1), while armed (N.J.S.A. 2A:151-1), upon which he was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment of 12 to 15 and 3 to 5 years respectively.
Upon the filing of an answer by the respondent, Howard D. Yeager, Principal Keeper of the New Jersey State Prison, the cause was duly referred to the Honorable Michael Keller, Jr., United States Magistrate for the District of New Jersey, pursuant to General Rule 40, subd. E (3)1 of the Local Rules of this Court, for his preliminary review, report and recommendation, as to whether a hearing is warranted.
An extensive and independent review has been made of the pleadings, pertinent state court records, transcript of testimony, and briefs, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (3) and Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed. 2d 770 (1963). As well, a very careful assessment has been made of the Report and Recommendation submitted by the United States Magistrate Michael Keller, Jr., wherein he recommends that the petition be dismissed on the grounds that no plenary hearing is warranted and that this Court certify that there exists no probable cause for appeal. We are in full accord with that recommendation for the reasons so excellently stated by the Magistrate. A copy of his Report and Recommendation is attached hereto and filed as part of this Opinion and Order.
Now, therefore, it is on this 7th day of January, 1971 ordered and adjudged that the petition of Bobby L. Mayberry for a writ of habeas corpus be and is dismissed hereby; and
It is further ordered that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate be and is hereby adopted as the Opinion of this Court; and
Furthermore, it is certified that no probable cause exists for an appeal herefrom.
Pursuant to General Rule 40, subd. E(3)1 of the Local Rules of this Court, this matter was referred to me as United States Magistrate for preliminary review, report and recommendation as to whether a hearing is required.
The petitioner, Bobby L. Mayberry, seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to the provisions of 28 U. S.C. § 2241, et seq., attacking the legality of his confinement in the New Jersey State Prison. He was convicted in October, 1966 of armed robbery on August 12, 1965 of a Shop Rite Market. (N.J. S.A. 2A:141-1; 151-5). In November, he was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment for both convictions of 12 to 15 and 3 to 5 years, respectively; these terms to run consecutively to a life sentence imposed in January, 1966 for a murder conviction.2
On appeal, the conviction for armed robbery was affirmed by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, in its unpublished per curiam opinion of June 6, 1968 (Exhibit R-9). Petitions for certification and certiorari were denied, respectively, by the New Jersey Supreme Court, State v. Mayberry, 52 N.J. 493, 246 A.2d 452 (1968) and by the United States Supreme Court, 393 U.S. 1122, 89 S.Ct. 1003, 22 L.Ed.2d 128 (1968).
The following is a summary of the grounds asserted for relief:
With repetitions, a total of 34 grounds for relief were submitted on the appeal to the Superior Court of New Jersey, as set forth in Exhibits R-1 to R-4, inclusive. The Petitioner and Respondent have submitted various State records, briefs, etc., which have been marked as exhibits and are set forth in an Appendix filed herein. In one form or another, they included the grounds now urged. It would appear that ground #6, above, may not have been submitted to the New Jersey Supreme Court. However, it is concluded that the petitioner has substantially and sufficiently exhausted his state remedies in good faith and is properly before this Court. Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963); Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953).
The per curiam opinion of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, contained no specific findings and merely concluded that the grounds urged were without merit. Some of the grounds raised here involve only issues of law and require no hearing. Others involve mixed questions of law and fact, but it is not urged that any new or different evidence would be offered. As to the latter, however, the transcripts of the hearing on the pretrial motion and the trial, together with the various briefs, etc., submitted, constitute sufficient bases for disposition of these grounds without a hearing. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L. Ed.2d 770 (1963).
The testimony may be summarized as follows:
At approximately 4:20 P.M., August 12, 1965, at the Shop Rite Market, Burlington, N. J., an armed robbery was committed during which three store employees were present at various times. The armed robber was seen by one of the employees leaving the area in a car which was described as to make, color and partial license number. This car was later found in a nearby area where residents had seen a man enter another car, which was also described as to make and color, and bearing Delaware license plates. The petitioner owned a car of that make and it was licensed in Delaware. The petitioner was arrested in Chattanooga, Tenn. on September 5, 1965, waived extradition and was returned to New Jersey on September 8, 1965. He was identified in a line-up the following day by two of the store employees. In addition, a latent thumb-print found on the "getaway" car was identified as that of the petitioner. His defense was alibi.
The grounds urged will be treated seriatim.
The petitioner has alleged a violation of his right to a public trial pursuant to the Sixth Amendment. At the beginning of the fourth day of trial, the defendant's wife and three children, aged 5, 6 years, and 15 months, were seated in the first row of the public area directly behind the defendant. During the previous three days of trial, the children were not present and Mrs. Mayberry sat in a different location. The Prosecutor objected to their presence on the ground that their appearance was solely for the purpose of creating sympathy. Counsel for the defendant advised the Court that he had suggested that they appear on what was thought would be the last day of trial "because I felt that it would aid this man and I feel it incumbent upon me to do everything possible" (Exhibit R-18:334-13). He further indicated that his purpose was to show that the defendant was a family man who was not the type who would commit such a crime of violence. There had already been testimony as to the number of children and their ages. Defense counsel further advised the Court that he had suggested that the wife and children be seated in the first row directly behind the defendant. The Court indicated that the presence of the children was nothing more than an attempt to arouse sympathy. During the colloquy, the 15 month old child started to cry and was taken out of the courtroom. The Court alluded to such disruption during the trial but apparently based his ruling on the issue of sympathy. He directed that the children be removed from the courtroom for the balance of the trial.
If a public trial was not accorded to the petitioner, the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated. In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948). Public trial is essentially a right of the accused. Geise v. United States, 265 F.2d 659 (9 Cir. 1959). There is, however, a correlative right to preserve the public's right to be informed about criminal prosecutions in the best...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Phillips
...rel. Bennett v. Rundle (C.A.3, 1969), 419 F.2d 599; United States v. Lopez (E.D.N.Y.1971), 328 F.Supp. 1077; United States ex rel. Maryberry v. Yeager (D.N.J.1971), 321 F.Supp. 199; Oxnard Publishing Co. v. Superior Court of Ventura County (1968), Cal.App., 68 Cal.Rptr. 83; E. W. Scripps Co......
-
State v. Allen
...at 548, many courts have found that the public has a cognizable interest in keeping trials open. See United States ex rel. Mayberry v. Yeager, 321 F.Supp. 199, 204 (D.N.J.1971); United States v. Kobli, 172 F.2d 919, 924 (3 Cir. 1949); United States v. Sorrentino, 175 F.2d 721, 722--23 (9 Ci......
-
Rock v. Zimmerman
...1352 (W.D.Va.1975); see also United States ex rel. Jacques v. Hilton, 423 F.Supp. 895, 900 (D.N.J.1976); United States ex rel. Mayberry v. Yeager, 321 F.Supp. 199, 205-06 (D.N.J.1971). D. MIRANDA In the third issue raised, Petitioner contends that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated by......
-
Olson v. Thurston
...courts have adopted the Kirkland rationale. Brode v. Power, 31 Conn.Supp. 412, 332 A.2d 376 (Super.Ct.1974); United States ex rel. Mayberry v. Yeager, 321 F.Supp. 199 (D.N.J.1971); People ex rel. Cooper v. Lombard, 45 A.D.2d 928, 357 N.Y.S.2d 323 (1974); People v. Artis, 32 A.D.2d 554, 300 ......