Waley v. Johnston
| Decision Date | 28 February 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 10489.,10489. |
| Citation | 139 F.2d 117 |
| Parties | WALEY v. JOHNSTON, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Harmon Metz Waley, in pro. per.
Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., and R. B. McMillan and Thos. C. Lynch, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before GARRECHT, DENMAN, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied February 28, 1944. See 64 S.Ct. 617.
Appellant originated this case by filing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on January 2, 1941. The application was denied on April 15, 1941. Upon appeal to this court, the judgment was affirmed. Waley v. Johnston, Warden, 9 Cir., 124 F.2d 587.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and thereafter the judgment was vacated and the cause was remanded for a hearing. Waley v. Johnston, 316 U. S. 101, 62 S.Ct. 964, 86 L.Ed. 1302. Upon receipt of the mandate of the United States Supreme Court, the District Court issued the writ of habeas corpus and a hearing was had, and thereafter the District Court entered its order dismissing the writ.
The appellant's contentions are two:
Among other things, the District Court found:
In determining the issues presented, it was necessary and expedient for the District Court, as it is for this court, to have in mind the outstanding facts which entered into and had to be considered in arriving at the findings, conclusions and judgment.
The appellant admits he was part of a conspiracy in furtherance of which he and his associates kidnapped the young son of J. P. Weyerhauser of Tacoma, Washington, kept him a prisoner, and travelled over a considerable portion of the State of Washington, and thereafter released him upon payment of $200,000. He later confessed that in their migrations while they held the boy prisoner they took him into the State of Idaho. This part he now denies. The appellant has a record of the commission of other crimes.
While appellant now denies that the victim was ever taken into the State of Idaho, he admits the kidnapping and generally every other allegation and charge in the indictment. He insists that not having taken the boy into Idaho the federal courts were without jurisdiction, and further, that his plea of guilty was induced by threats and machinations of one Albert Miller, an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice. Besides his plea of guilty, he admits he signed several confessions in which it is recited that he took the victim into the State of Idaho. In his testimony in this hearing, he admits practically all other matters contained in these confessions but insists it was not true that they went into the State of Idaho. As Waley himself put it in his testimony, "the only material and relevant thing to this case as far as that confession is concerned * * * is about going into the State of Idaho." This was again emphasized in petitioner's answer to a question of the trial judge:
The pertinent question to be determined by this proceeding is: Was appellant's plea of guilty induced by threats, intimidation or coercion?
As to having been intimidated into pleading guilty by threats, his story in substance is that he was told by Miller that unless he would admit that the victim had been taken into Idaho, he, Waley, would be turned over to the authorities of the State of Washington which had a statute punishing kidnapping with a death penalty in the event the victim had been harmed in any way. Appellant testified that Miller told him that if he did not plead guilty to transportation in Interstate Commerce, the Federal Press Agents would release propaganda to newspapers and newsmagazines; that these agents were connected with the newspapers and with one Courtney Ryley Cooper who would issue these statements to the newspapers for publication; that this propaganda would state that this boy, George Weyerhauser, was injured in some way; and that they would invent some evidence that he was injured and cause the State of Washington to hang all the defendants, that is, the appellant, his wife and the codefendant Dainard; that the Department of Justice through its influence with the press would cause the people of the State of Washington to believe that he had harmed this Weyerhauser boy, and therefore would make it a capital crime under the laws of the State of Washington; that it would be better for him to plead guilty to the charge of transporting the boy in interstate commerce and be tried by the Department of Justice than to stand trial for the state offense in Washington; that the Chief, Mr. Hoover wanted some money so he could build up his Bureau of Investigation; that he believed these representations, and relying thereon entered a plea of guilty, and that he would not have otherwise so pleaded. There were also some loose statements in the evidence that E. J. Connelley, also an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had threatened to beat him up. The appellant insisted that these threats of bodily harm had nothing to do with his pleas of guilty because he told them "to come right ahead and I will guarantee to give at least a few black eyes before I leave myself." In his testimony appellant sought to make it clear that any bullying tactics did not frighten him in the least but it was the fear of newspaper publicity and the results thereof as imposed upon him by Miller which induced his pleas of guilty.
The record shows that at the time the appellant was arraigned, Judge Cushman was extremely careful to be sure that the rights of the defendant should be safeguarded. A few excerpts from the record are illuminating:
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
The indictment was read after which the following occurred:
Later the appellant indicated his desire to ask a question of the court and then this occurred:
Thereupon, Mrs. Waley suggested Mr. S. J. O'Brien of Tacoma, Washington, as attorney. Then the following took place:
Thereupon, the receiving of the pleas was postponed until another date at which time the defendant returned into court with his attorney and again signified his desire to plead guilty which was then accepted in open court and entered of record.
The appellant, while on the witness stand in the hearing in this habeas corpus proceeding, admitted that he never told his attorney or anyone connected with the trial court that threats had been made against him in order to influence him to plead guilty to the charge of transporting the victim from the State of Washington to the State of Idaho.
The only testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Reincke
...sufficient to render a plea of guilty involuntary and thus susceptible to nullification in habeas corpus proceedings. Waley v. Johnston, 139 F.2d 117, 121 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 321 U.S. 779, 64 S.Ct. 617, 88 L.Ed. 1072. So long as the guilty plea was voluntarily made, it will withstand ......
-
U.S. v. Mathews
...has never squarely addressed the issue, our earlier cases lead us to conclude that Mathews' contention is meritless. In Waley v. Johnston, 139 F.2d 117 (9th Cir.1943), cert. denied, 321 U.S. 779, 64 S.Ct. 617, 88 L.Ed. 1072 (1944), we addressed this issue in the context of a petition for ha......
-
Price v. Johnston
...in a habeas corpus proceeding, were passed upon in the opinion of this court, Price v. Johnston, 125 F.2d 806. Affirmed. 1 Waley v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 139 F.2d 117, certiorari denied 321 U.S. 779, 64 S. Ct. 2 Hall v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 86 F.2d 820; Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 6......
-
Doran v. Wilson
...F.2d 878; Gilmore v. People of State of California, supra, n. 2; Gladden v. Holland, 9 Cir., 1966, 366 F.2d 580. 4 See Waley v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 1943, 139 F.2d 117; Grove v. Wilson, 9 Cir., 1966, 368 F.2d 5 See also Gladden v. Holland, supra, n. 3; McGarrity v. Wilson, 9 Cir., 1966, 368 F.......