Wansley v. Miller
| Decision Date | 01 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 545-71-R. |
| Citation | 353 F. Supp. 42 |
| Parties | Thomas Carlton WANSLEY v. Andrew P. MILLER et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Philip J. Hirschkop, Alexandria, Va., William M. Kunstler, New York City, for petitioner.
Gilbert Haith, Vann H. Lefcoe, Richmond, Va., for respondents.
Thomas Wansley, a black Virginia prisoner, has filed a complaint in the form of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and for declaratory and injunctive relief. The nature of his present confinement arises from State court convictions for rape and robbery. The complaint is in two counts: Count 1 seeks a judgment declaring certain practices of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be unconstitutional; and in Count 2 he seeks release from his instant confinement. Jurisdiction of his request for habeas corpus relief is attained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254. The Court's jurisdiction with regard to his other claims arises pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 et seq., the Constitution of the United States, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2201 and 2202.
Since the Court's determination of many of the issues raised with reference to the habeas corpus matter will be determinative of Wansley's request for declaratory judgments, the Court deems it appropriate to first address itself to those issues material to the relief sought under the Court's habeas corpus jurisdiction.
The petitioner has raised all pertinent issues on appeal to the highest court of Virginia, hence the requirement of exhaustion of remedies has been met, 18 U.S.C. § 2254, and the issues are ripe for determination on the merits.
The Court has examined the voluminous record of the State proceedings, including exhibits and other documents presented to the Court, and counsel have been heard on oral argument. On the basis of the entire record herein the Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
Uncontroverted Facts
The uncontroverted facts before the Court may be summarized as follows: On December 5, 1962, one Annie Carter, an adult white woman of Lynchburg. Virginia, reported that she had been raped and robbed by a Negro. Thereafter the Lynchburg police entered into an intensive investigation by virtue of which the petitioner, then 16 years of age, was apprehended, and charged with several crimes including the rape and robbery of Miss Carter and rape of another woman, Mrs. Kyoko Fleshman. During the investigative period he was interrogated for several hours without counsel and made an allegedly damaging admission to his mother in the presence of a probation officer of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of the City of Lynchburg. The legality of the subsequent introduction of that admission upon trial has been advanced to the Court as one ground for granting the writ.
Because at the time of his arrest plaintiff was only 16 years of age, pursuant to the provisions of Title 16.1, § 158 of the Code of Virginia he was placed under the jurisdiction and supervision of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of the City of Lynchburg. Although plaintiff's certification hearing was not scheduled until December 13, 1962, plaintiff alleges that the Juvenile Court Judge, defendant Wingo, stated publicly on December 10, 1962, that he had already decided that the plaintiff would be treated as an adult, which allegation is denied by the defendant Wingo. On December 13, 1962, after a hearing, plaintiff was officially certified to the Corporation Court of Lynchburg for trial as an adult. No transcript or recording was made of the certification proceeding. In addition, plaintiff alleges that defendant Wingo failed to set forth in his certification order any reason(s) for his decision to waive jurisdiction. Contending he had no transcript to review the evidence nor the benefit of any explanation rendered by Judge Wingo for his decision, plaintiff filed a pretrial motion to examine the Juvenile Court Judge. This motion was denied. The aforementioned certification procedures are challenged herein and advanced by the petitioner as a ground for granting the writ.
In January 1963, Wansley was indicted by a grand jury for the rape and robbery of Miss Carter. He has challenged, herein, the legality of the grand jury on the basis of unrepresentative composition, lack of a grand jury transcript, and/or denial of his trial court motion to examine the grand jurors. He was arraigned and pled not guilty. He was, in addition, indicted for the rape of Mrs. Fleshman. He was tried before a jury, found guilty on all charges, and sentenced to death for each rape and 20 years for the Carter robbery. On September 21, 1964, both convictions were reversed by the Virginia Supreme Court. (In November 1966, upon motion of the Commonwealth, the Fleshman charge was nolle proseq'd.)
On July 7, 1965, prior to retrial the petitioner, without success, presented several motions, including one for change of venue, on the ground that adverse publicity precluded the opportunity for a fair trial.
He was, in October 1966, retried on the Carter robbery charge before a jury which failed to agree upon a verdict, and a mistrial was declared.
Prior to a third trial on the Carter charges, Wansley again moved for a change of venue. A lengthy pretrial hearing was held and the motion was again denied. The third trial began in March 1967 and resulted in a guilty verdict on both charges. The jury recommended sentences of life imprisonment on each charge, but the Court reduced the life sentence in the robbery matter to 20 years. The petitioner subsequently unsuccessfully appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court, raising the issues herein considered.
The record reflects that there was an enormous amount of newspaper publicity in the local press, giving rise to the petitioner's motions for a change of venue, the nature and effect of which will be scrutinized infra.
While petitioner has assigned numerous grounds for habeas corpus relief, those issues which the Court believes merit discussion will be addressed separately with the Court stating its findings of fact and conclusions of law in seriatem.
Petitioner alleges and argues that the manner in which the Lynchburg press addressed itself to matters involving Negroes, and more specifically Wansley and the charges with which he was faced, as well as their references to and description of his counsel, precluded the possibility of a fair trial in Lynchburg, Virginia, and that accordingly, the trial court's denial of a motion for a change of venue amounted to a deprivation of his constitutional rights.
The record before this Court is shocking as to the nature and amount of prejudicial pre-trial publicity given the matters by the Lynchburg press. Same is all the more shocking when viewed, as this record proves, that for some time prior to Wansley's arrest the policies of the Lynchburg newspapers were such as to be described in a document styled "An open letter to the people of Lynchburg" and signed on behalf of the local Chamber of Commerce, the Retail Merchants' Association, Central Virginia Industries, the Lynchburg Board of Realtors, and more than sixty prominent Lynchburg citizens, as creating a situation injurious to the good relationships which had existed among the people of the community. The document expresses the hope that the Negro citizens "will be encouraged by the knowledge that there are many thoughtful white citizens in this community who appreciate their continued willingness, in spite of repeated indignities by the newspapers, to help promote a more wholesome climate throughout the City of Lynchburg." The document expresses the judgment of the writers that the Lynchburg newspapers were contributing to the frustrations and bitterness developing among the Negro citizens by the papers' policies.
A finding that the nature and amount of adverse pre-trial publicity was such as to preclude the petitioner from obtaining a fair and impartial jury is in actuality a finding of "mixed law and fact," see Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961).
The Court is satisfied in this instance that the refusal of the motion for a change of venue was violative of petitioner's constitutional rights. The Court's conclusion as to this finding while induced by the entire record, is perhaps the more readily understandable by reason of the following specificities:
A. Publicity.
Lynchburg at the time pertinent hereto had two main newspapers, the Lynchburg News, a morning paper, and Lynchburg Daily Advance, an evening paper, both under common ownership and management. The file reflects that the sheer quantity of coverage of the Wansley matters was enormous. While the Court appreciates that it does not have all the relevant newspaper articles before it, its conclusions as to quantity and tenor of same is represented by the fact that:
1. The uncontradicted assertion thereof by the petitioner and admission in response thereto by the respondents that said news coverage was "extensive."
2. The testimony of News and Daily Advance personnel upon pretrial examination (notably Gunn, Scruggs, Peace and Glass) with reference to the content of numerous articles (T. 181, et seq.).
3. Of the 43 veniremen who were questioned about their familiarity with press coverage in the Lynchburg papers, 40 had positive recollection of said coverage. At least 16 veniremen believed him guilty because of newspaper articles, or were not sure they could put aside what they had read in the newspapers.
In addition to concluding that there was extensive pretrial publicity, which included news coverage subsequent to his first and second trials on the Carter charges, the Court also finds that said publicity emanating from the Lynchburg newspapers was both inflammatory and highly prejudicial to the petitioner as well as to one of his counsel, William Kunstler...
To continue reading
Request your trial