United States ex rel. Townsend v. Twomey

Citation322 F. Supp. 158
Decision Date27 January 1971
Docket NumberNo. 67 C 389.,67 C 389.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America ex rel. Charles TOWNSEND, No. 210838, by William R. Ming, Jr., his next friend, Petitioner, v. John J. TWOMEY, Warden of Illinois Penitentiary, Joliet-Statesville Branch, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

William R. Ming, Jr., Sophia H. Hall and McCoy, Ming & Black, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.

William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., and James B. Zagel, Morton E. Friedman and Donald J. Veverka, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PERRY, District Judge.

The case of Charles Townsend is said to be the oldest capital punishment case in the country.

The history of the so-called Townsend case dates from the time of Charles Townsend's arrest in the early morning hours of New Year's Day 1954 and covers a span of 17 years. Petitioner (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Townsend" or "petitioner") was indicted for the murder of Jack Boone on January 6, 1954. He was tried in the Criminal Court of Cook County, Illinois; found guilty by a jury on February 18, 1955, and sentenced to death on April 7, 1955. Thus Charles Townsend has been, since the date of his arrest, confined continuously for 17 years in a jail or state penitentiary and on death row for fifteen years and nine months.

The record in this case is not only long but involved. After the trial there followed numerous reviews, petitions, proceedings, appeals and decisions. The Townsend case is now again before this Court.

This time the cause comes on to be heard upon the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus of petitioner, the Answer and Amended Answer thereto of respondents, a traverse by petitioner, evidence submitted in the form of the Appendix in case No. 14519 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the exhibits presented, the testimony of witnesses and the argument of counsel for the parties.

Petitioner alleges violation of his Federal Constitutional rights secured and guaranteed to him by the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and pursuant to the pertinent parts of Title 28, Sections 2241 through 2254, and particularly those of Section 2244(a), this Court has conducted a hearing on petitioner's Amended Petition.

With its long and involved history, the Townsend case stands as an illustration of the myriad complications, the multitude of problems, facing the courts in the area of post conviction review, both direct and collateral in nature. This is one of those cases which place the courts figuratively on the horns of a dilemma— in justice to provide petitioner with the opportunity to pursue every appropriate remedy but at the same time to serve the interest of society by expeditiously disposing of the ever increasing load of such cases.

In addition the Supreme Court of this land has set certain guidelines by its decisions in this area which the lower courts must follow and interpret and apply. These guidelines have been necessarily changed from time to time, especially for procedure in State court trials, in order to bring about uniformity and fairness of trials in State courts and Federal courts. The Supreme Court has been especially zealous and rightly so, in setting guidelines for admitting confessions in capital cases.

The United States Supreme Court in one of its opinions in the case involving an earlier petition by Townsend noted that the case came to it "after a tangle of prior proceedings". Since that time there have been more and involved proceedings in the United States District Court, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court and the "tangle" has become a labyrinth which, hopefully, will end with this hearing.

Following is a short history to date of appellate and collateral review of petitioner's conviction as reflected by the pleadings, exhibits and reported judicial decisions:

Chronology in Townsend Case

April 7, 1955Charles Townsend was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death in the Criminal Court of Cook County, Chicago, Illinois.

March 20, 1957—The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed that conviction. People v. Townsend, 11 Ill.2d 30, 131 N. E.2d 729.

October 14, 1957—Petition for Certiorari denied. Townsend v. Illinois, 355 U.S. 850, 78 S.Ct. 76, 2 L.Ed.2d 60.

November 25, 1957—Rehearing denied. Townsend v. Illinois, 355 U.S. 886, 78 S.Ct. 152, 2 L.Ed.2d 116.

April 28, 1958Petition for Post Conviction relief denied, Criminal Court of Cook County, Illinois.

May 23, 1958Petition for Writ of Error (upon the denial of post-conviction relief) denied by the Supreme Court of Illinois.

November 10, 1958—Petition for Certiorari denied. Townsend v. Illinois, 358 U.S. 887, 79 S.Ct. 128, 3 L.Ed.2d 115.

December 15, 1958Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus denied by the United States District Court, Chicago, Illinois.

December 17, 1958—Appeal from the denial to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals. United States ex rel. Townsend v. Sain, 7 Cir., 265 F.2d 660.

March 9, 1959Supreme Court of the United States, on certiorari to review the dismissal of the appeal by the Circuit Court of Appeals, remands cause to the U. S. District Court for a hearing. Townsend v. Sain, 359 U.S. 64, 79 S.Ct. 655, 3 L.Ed.2d 634.

June 24, 1959—U. S. District Court dismisses the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

April 7, 1960United States Court of Appeals affirms the U. S. District Court's dismissal. United States ex rel. Townsend v. Sain, 7 Cir., 276 F.2d 324.

April 3, 1961Supreme Court of the United States grants certiorari. Townsend v. Sain, 365 U.S. 866, 81 S.Ct. 907, 5 L.Ed.2d 859.

March 18, 1963Supreme Court of the United States remands the case to the U. S. District Court for a hearing on the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770.

December 17, 1963—Hearing commences in the U. S. District Court upon the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus before Judge Joseph Sam Perry, to whom the case had been reassigned.

January 13, 1964—U. S. District Court finds Townsend's confession to be voluntary, but issues a writ giving leave to the State of Illinois to retry the petitioner within four months after entry of findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment order.

July 22, 1964United States Court of Appeals reverses the decision of the U. S. District Court. United States ex rel. Townsend v. Ogilvie, 7 Cir., 334 F.2d 837.

January 1965Supreme Court of the United States denies certiorari. Townsend v. Ogilvie, 379 U.S. 984, 85 S.Ct. 683, 13 L.Ed.2d 574.

April 7, 1965—U. S. District Court dismisses writ under mandate of Supreme Court and denies leave to file an Amended Petition.

May 17, 1966United States Court of Appeals affirms the District Court's dismissal of the writ. United States ex rel. Townsend v. Ogilvie, 7 Cir., 360 F.2d 925.

November 7, 1966—Certiorari denied by Supreme Court of the United States. Townsend v. Ogilvie, Sheriff et al., 385 U.S. 938, 87 S.Ct. 304, 17 L.Ed.2d 218.

March 10, 1967—Townsend given leave to file new Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

March 13, 1967Motion of Cook County officials to dismiss petition for habeas corpus filed and denied.

March 19, 1968Respondent's amended motion to dismiss petition for habeas corpus denied.

March 25, 1968Respondent's motion for leave to file motion for judgment on the pleadings denied.

July 18, 1969Petitioner transferred from Cook County Jail to Illinois State Penitentiary.

July 22, 1969Respondent's motion to dismiss because of petitioner's transfer out of their custody.

September 26, 1969—Townsend given leave to file instanter Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

December 8, 1969Respondent Warden Pate's motion to dismiss Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus denied in toto. On Court's own motion, Townsend to be given a psychiatric examination. Respondent's answer to be filed in 20 days.

December 30, 1969—Warden Pate files Petition for Writ of Prohibition and/or Mandamus in U. S. Court of Appeals.

January 26, 1970—Response filed by Townsend in accordance with order of U. S. Court of Appeals.

February 10, 1970Petition for Writ of Prohibition and/or Mandamus denied by Court of Appeals. No opinion rendered.

May 8, 1970Respondent filed petition for certiorari.

June 22, 1970Respondent's petition for certiorari denied by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Upon the Supreme Court's last denial of certiorari, this Court proceeded in the matter of petitioner's Amended Petition. Petitioner's counsel having filed a petition alleging that petitioner "has deteriorated into a state of insanity" as a result of his long confinement under death sentence, and petitioner having denied he is insane, this Court ordered that a psychiatric examination be made of petitioner by Dr. Richard C. Marohn, a competent and qualified psychiatrist. Based upon said psychiatrist's psychiatric evaluation of petitioner, upon petitioner's sane and rational pleadings to this Court, and other evidence, the Court found Charles Townsend sane, capable of conferring with his counsel and competent to stand trial.

Petitioner has been ably represented in this proceeding by William R. Ming, Jr. and Sophia H. Hall and the law firm of McCoy, Ming and Black, as has respondent by William J. Scott, Attorney General for the State of Illinois, and James B. Zagel, Morton E. Friedman and Donald J. Veverka, Assistant Attorney Generals. The Court notes that since about 1957 Charles Townsend has had the benefit of the professional services of the above mentioned law firm and of a former member of that firm, now Mr. Justice George N. Leighton of the Illinois Appellate Court, all of said services having been afforded to the petitioner without any compensation to any of said attorneys. On the trial below petitioner was represented by the Cook County Public Defender and his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • United States ex rel. Townsend v. Twomey
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • January 21, 1972
    ...of the second federal habeas corpus proceedings in the district court by a judgment order issuing the writ. The district court order, 322 F.Supp. 158, voided a jury verdict and Townsend's death sentence and he was to be held for a new trial no later than four months from the date of the ord......
  • Grigsby v. Mabry, PB-C-78-32.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • March 7, 1980
    ...they are correct, they will have greater influence on the group than will equalitarians. 22 The Court in United States ex rel. Townsend v. Twomey, 322 F.Supp. 158 (N.D.Ill.1971), after hearing evidence from Dr. Hans Zeisel, arrived at the conclusion suggested by petitioner with less evidenc......
  • United States v. SPERRINGER, Crim. No. 67-25-E.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia
    • January 28, 1971
  • US v. BERRIOS-RODRIGUEZ, Crim. No. 88-253 (JP).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • July 17, 1991
    ...768 F. Supp. 939 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, ... Sonia BERRIOS-RODRIGUEZ ... In U.S. v. Townsend, 322 F.Supp. 158 (N.D.Ill.1971), the expert witness who was ... ...
1 books & journal articles
  • Getting out of this mess: steps toward addressing and avoiding inordinate delay in capital cases.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 89 No. 1, September 1998
    • September 22, 1998
    ...Id. (11) Townsend argued that a 15-year, nine-month delay on death row was unconstitutional. United States ex rel Townsend v. Twomey, 322 F. Supp. 158, 159 (E.D. Ill.), rev'd, 452 F.2d 350 (7th Cir. 1971). The district court did not directly rule on that argument, but noted that the delay w......

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