United States v. Waller
Decision Date | 23 December 1954 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 4821. |
Citation | 126 F. Supp. 537 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Joseph SHEFFIELD v. Hiram B. WALLER, Sheriff of the Parish of Franklin, State of Louisiana. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Eugene Stanley, J. Charles Collins, Jr., New Orleans, La., Leon A. Picou, St. Francisville, La., for relator.
Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., State of Louisiana, M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Louisiana, Harry N. Anders, Dist. Atty., Fifth Judicial District, State of Louisiana, Winnsboro, La., for respondent.
Presented here by an application for habeas corpus, we have for decision the question of whether due process of law was done, under the Federal Constitution, in a State court conviction of murder. Jurisdiction exists.1
On June 14, 1953, John L. Waller, a deputy sheriff in Franklin Parish, Louisiana, acting in line of duty, was killed instantly by a shotgun blast. Nineteen days later Joseph Sheffield, relator herein, stood convicted of the crime in the State District Court, and was sentenced to death in the electric chair. In that brief interval he had been indicted, arraigned, tried, convicted and sentenced.
Haste was the watchword:
A grand jury was called into special session on June 17, 1953, three days after Deputy Waller was killed, and immediately returned its indictment charging relator with murder. He was a penniless, 24-year-old sharecropper, with a sixth-grade education, ignorant of trial proceedings and unable adequately to understand or conduct his own defense. By 1:30 P. M. the same day, the District Judge had appointed counsel for him, he was arraigned, pleaded "not guilty", and the case was fixed for trial twelve days later, on June 29, 1953. In the early evening of June 30th, after about three hours deliberation, the jury returned its verdict of "guilty as charged", requiring a capital sentence. This was imposed by the judge on July 3rd. Relator has not been executed because, as explained infra, the Governor has withheld signing his death warrant.
For a thorough exposition of the case, it is necessary that we narrate in some detail the salient facts as they developed from the time of the shooting. Some relate to matters which essentially constitute lack of due process; others to connected pre-trial and post-trial developments, as well as to trial tactics. Together they clearly demonstrate that relator, with whose guilt or innocence we are not here concerned, did not receive a fair and impartial trial, which is his right, and the right of all persons, under the Federal Constitution, Amend. 14.
Unfortunately, no stenographic record was made of the testimony and State trial proceedings, although a qualified court reporter2 was available in Winnsboro, the Parish seat where the trial was held. Consequently, we have had to depend on the memories of some of those present, and upon meager court minutes, as to what transpired. Likewise, there was a natural but regrettable reluctance on the part of some participants to disclose fully, and with candor, what took place. Nevertheless, we believe we have seen and heard enough to reach some reasonably solid conclusions.
Shortly after the shooting, relator was arrested and placed in the Parish jail at the courthouse in Winnsboro. He has remained there since, except during the hearing on his present application. On the day of his arrest, under questioning by the District Attorney, he admitted he had fired the fatal shot, but contended in effect that he had done so in self-defense. On further questioning the next day, he withdrew his statements tending to establish self-defense and made a damning confession which was the coup de grace at his trial. He had no counsel when these statements were taken.
During the afternoon of Sunday, June 14th, while relator and others were being questioned, a fairly sizeable crowd of about fifty to a hundred persons — coming and going — congregated at the courthouse square. These people were not unruly, however, and no danger of mob violence appeared then or later. Those who came and went expressed a sense of horror that "another" law enforcement officer had been done in, it appearing that several others in the North Louisiana area had been killed in line of duty within a relatively few months. That there was an "open season on peace officers", seemed to be the common sentiment.
On Thursday, June 18th, the weekly "Franklin Sun", the "Reading Habit of Franklin Parish People" and the only newspaper published there, carried a banner headline, front-page story about Deputy Waller's death and relator's arrest. There were pictures of the deputy and of relator in jail. Over relator's picture was a caption which read: "Charged with Murder". Underneath it was the following:
(Emphasis supplied.)
Over the deputy's picture was the caption: "Officer Slain". Underneath it was the following:
(Emphasis supplied.)
The banner story of June 18th contained the following language:
On June 25th, just four days before the trial, a front page story included the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Smith
...Vt. 433, 150 A. 132, 133 (1930). 170 Irvin v. Dowd, supra note 160, at 724 & n. 4, 81 S.Ct. at 1643. 171 United States ex rel. Sheffield v. Waller, 126 F.Supp. 537, 545 (W.D.La. 1954), application for probable cause denied, 224 F.2d 280 (5 Cir.1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 922, 76 S.Ct. 217......
-
Corbett v. Patterson
...343 U.S. 181, 72 S. Ct. 599, 96 L.Ed. 872 (1952); Fouquette v. Bernard, 198 F.2d 96 (9th Cir. 1952); and United States ex rel. Sheffield v. Waller, 126 F.Supp. 537 (D.La.1954). (It must be noted that in Colorado errors urged on appeal are set forth in the briefs rather than by an assignment......
-
United States v. Harpole
...206, 210, 71 S.Ct. 262, 95 L.Ed. 215; Mahler v. Eby, 1924, 264 U.S. 32, 46, 44 S.Ct. 283, 68 L.Ed. 549; United States ex rel. Sheffield v. Waller, D.C.W.D.La.1954, 126 F.Supp. 537, 546, certificate of probable cause denied 5 Cir., 1955, 224 F.2d 280; 28 U.S.C.A. § 2106; 28 U.S.C.A. § 2243, ......
-
Goldsby v. State
...340 U.S. 206, 71 S.Ct. 262, 95 L.Ed. 215; Mahler v. Eby, 1924, 264 U.S. 32, 44 S.Ct. 283, 68 L.Ed. 549; United States ex rel. Sheffield v. Waller, D.C.La.1954, 126 F.Supp. 537, 546; 5 Cir., 224 F.2d 280; see also Grandsinger v. Bovey, D.C.Neb.1957, 153 F.Supp. 201, 240; 8 Cir., 253 F.2d 917......