Document: 409 U.S. 224 93 S.Ct. 359 34 L.Ed.2d 431 Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, Petitioner,v.James William STIDHAM. No. 71-224. Argued Oct. 11, 1972. Decided Dec. 7, Opinion Modified Jan. 22, 1973. See 410 904, 955. Syllabus During respondent's trial for murder he challenged the voluntariness of his confession. A full evidentiary hearing was held outside jury's presence, following which court confession admissible. After affirmance conviction on appeal, respondent sought state post-conviction relief. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed denial motion to vacate, and an by St. Louis Circuit issue. That concluded that judge himself had found voluntary thus complied with Jackson v. Denno, 378 368, 84 1774, 12 908. affirmed, additionally been given a new again be voluntary. Respondent then federal habeas corpus. District determined Denno satisfied. Appeals, concluding judge, as permitted then-prevailing law, not made finding but submitted issue jury, entitled hearing. Held: court's error, if any, remedied constitutionally adequate court, upheld after from its independent examination record Appeals therefore erred in holding still another court. Pp. 228—231. 443 F.2d 1327, remanded. Kenneth M. Romines, Thayer, Mo., petitioner. Mark Hennelly, Louis, respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 This case has long tortured history is yet concluded. At this juncture question whether, absent further proceedings determine confession, 1955 vulnerable attack under Fourteenth Amendment construed applied 908 (1964). 2 In July 1955, Stidham convicted first-degree fellow inmate during riot. He sentenced life imprisonment. represented experienced counsel who when it offered at trial. presence jury held. Stidham's testimony relevant circumstances surrounding sharp conflict officers. His claim subjected gross physical abuse; officers denied claim. conclusion hearing, admitted ruling: 3 'THE COURT: (Exhibit) 16 16—1, Court's matters concerning statement should Jury, subject course any attacks credibility Defendant. Defendant right proceed challenge even before upon evidence admissible evidence, examinations witnesses might conducted, so we may Sergeant Little, identification Jury question, Exhibit 16—1. 4 'MR. HENNELLY: other words, overruling my Motion, request hold matter those statements were involuntary, right? 5 right. Sheriff will you bring back in?' 6 affirmed appeal State Stidham, 305 S.W.2d 7 (Mo.1957). vacate 403 616 (Mo.1966). On second however, ordered accordance newly revised procedures. 415 297 (1967). Among issues heard decided whether infirm Due Process Clause Amendment. compliance order, December 5, 1968, Judge Godfrey City Louis. oral both State; also transcript prior well certain stipulations fact parties. April 1969, issued opinion, findings conclusions denying relief requested. With respect issue, first rule Denno. As vel non, said: 8 'As subparagraph b averment 'the overwhelming involuntary because coercion exerted movant,' contention raised profusely litigated vs. supra, finds no longer open here. Statler, supra; Crawford State, supra. 9 'It noted greatly conflicting resolved instance having regard witnesses. now considered closed, so.' 10 judgment 449 634 (1970). Agreeing sufficient clarity event circuit view, 'found, previous written confessions . .' Based own extensive analysis record, 'overwhelmingly supported procedurally factually cause meets all requirements cases there invasion due process.' Id., 644. 11 resorted corpus, presenting several including matter. United States Western Missouri, examined proceedings, petition without violation satisfactorily submitting jury. 328 F.Supp. 1291 divided vote. 1327 (CA8 1971). Its understanding law time required make himself, submit instance. saw it, precisely what did: assessment merely one Because view never reliable judicial determination facts ultimate voluntariness, either or later remanded Court, being contemplated would allowed 'reasonable error-free Sigler Parker, 396 482, 484, 90 667, 669, 24 672 We granted certiorari, 404 1058, 92 732, 30 74 (1972). 13 are asked failed comply requirement must Petitioner's position force, begins proposition too much influenced have done prevailing little actually did. Even controlling submission judge's rule, argument goes, did prevent him resolving disputed admitting into evidence. Obviously, said, took latter course, (1) wholly unnecessary time-wasting procedure (2) suppress necessarily indicating against believed rather than police, inconceivable Finally, urged courts Federal ruling equivalent affirmative accepted interpretation lower courts. 14 then, free doubt, evident need decide case, requires reversal judgment. 15 flawed does entitle subsequently provided confession—error-free substantively acceptable Clause. U.S., 393—396, S.Ct., 1789—1791. Here, courts, connection sentence, unquestionably furnished outcome adverse Stidham. But said itself bound independently voluntarily given. Reliance placed Godfrey's conflicting, '(t)he teeth order reopening entire directing 'to questions law. 298. thought mandate expressly read ..' S.W.2d, What more, carefully reviewed noting contradiction uncorroborated claims overwhelming,' id., 641, patrol, police prison officers—'all these witnesses, produced state, categorically implicitly refuted mistreatment, mental.' 643 supported' process. 17 inclined disagree between two sufficiently remedied. 18 This, end prisoner resort corpus that, contrary judgment, inadmissible reach here our function deal 19 Eighth consistent opinion. 20 So ordered. 21 Reversed

Category: 0