Williams v. Wainwright

• Decision Date: 19 November 1969
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 69-1082.
• Parties: Edward WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

308 F. Supp. 81

Edward WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

Civ. A. No. 69-1082.

United States District Court S. D. Florida, Miami Division.

November 19, 1969.

No attorney for petitioner.

Earl Faircloth Atty. Gen., State of Florida, and J. Terrell Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, Fla., for respondent.

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

ATKINS, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus of Edward Williams. The Response of the State has been received.

Petitioner has been twice tried for the April, 1962 murder of Lucy Ann Wethington. The first conviction was overturned and a new trial ordered by the Florida Supreme Court pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. Williams v. State, 184 So.2d 525 (4th DCA Fla. 1966). Both juries failed to recommend mercy and Petitioner was sentenced to death. The second conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the Florida Supreme Court. Williams v. State, 228 So.2d 377 (April 23, 1969).

Petitioner now challenges his second conviction. He advances three grounds in his formal petition and several more in an attached, informal petition. The only grounds that a habeas court can consider are those that have been presented to the highest state court. Whippler v. Balkcom, 342 F.2d 388 (5th Cir. 1965). The Florida Supreme Court has considered only three of the grounds here advanced:

1) The admissibility of a photograph of the victim at the death scene;

2) The admissibility of a small paper note found on the defendant at the time of arrest; and

3) Denial of a fair jury in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. This federal habeas court will consider only these three grounds. The Petition is dismissed as to all other grounds because it appears that no state court in any way has had the opportunity to consider them.

Petitioner alleges that he was prejudiced in the eyes of the jury by the admission into evidence of both the photograph and the note. Both contentions are evidentiary in nature. The trial judge has ruled upon their relevancy and possible prejudicial effect and has been affirmed on appeal. A federal habeas court does not "sit to review state court action on questions of the propriety of the trial judge's action in the admission of evidence." Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 228, 62 S.Ct. 280, 286, 86 L.Ed. 166 (1941); Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967); Nees v. Culbertson, 406 F.2d 621 (5th Cir. 1969). The actions complained of do not rise to a constitutional level within the meaning of Title 28 U. S.C.A. Section 2241(c) (3) and must be dismissed.

The third and most serious allegation challenges the lawfulness of the jury that sentenced Petitioner to death on the basis of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968). Witherspoon stands for the limited proposition that the state cannot challenge a veniremen for cause merely because he said he was "opposed to capital punishment" or indicated that he had "conscientious scruples against inflicting it." Id., at 514, 88 S.Ct. at 1773. At the same time the Supreme Court was very careful to point out that the state had an equal right to an impartial jury. Therefore, the state still has the right to challenge any venireman that demonstrates that his view of capital punishment would either prevent him from finding the defendant guilty or prevent him from imposing the death penalty. Williams v. Dutton, 400 F.2d 797 (5th Cir. 1968).

With these standards in mind this Court has carefully examined the transcript of the voir dire examination. The Court feels there is nothing that an evidentiary hearing could do to enable the Court to render judgment. The voir dire must stand or fall on the record. There were eight veniremen who were dismissed for cause. The Florida Supreme Court has thoroughly considered the dismissal of three of these veniremen in an unpublished opinion. (Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Haslom and Mr. Epps). Upon independent analysis and upon the authority of Title 28 U.S.C.A. Section 2254(d) this federal habeas court adopts those findings as its own.

Mrs....