Document: 394 U.S. 286 89 S.Ct. 1082 22 L.Ed.2d 281 George B. HARRIS, Judge of District Court for the Northern California, Petitioner,v.Louis S. NELSON, Warden. No. 199. Argued Dec. 9, 1968. Decided March 24, 1969. Rehearing Denied May 5, See 1025, 1623. [Syllabus from 287 intentionally omitted] J. Stanley Pottinger and Thomas Rosch, San Francisco, Cal., petitioner. Derald E. Granberg, respondent. Jerome Feit, Washington, D.C., United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave Court. Mr. Justice FORTAS delivered opinion 1 This case presents question whether state prisoners who have commenced habeas corpus proceedings in a federal district court may, proper circumstances, utilize instrument interrogatories discovery purposes. I. 2 Petitioner is Chief States California. Respondent warden California State Prison at Quentin. The proceeding was initiated Alfred Walker had been convicted courts crime possession marihuana. After exhausting remedies, he filed petition Federal Court, alleging that evidence seized search incident to his arrest improperly admitted trial. basis this claim allegation incidental were based solely on statement an informant who, according Walker's sworn statement, not shown reliable; fact, unreliable; whose statements accepted police without precautionary procedures. 3 issued order show cause respondent made return. Thereafter, motion evidentiary hearing, which granted. Two months later, served upon series interrogatories, pursuant Rule 33 Rules Civil Procedure, seeking certain facts directed proof informant's unreliability. objections absence authority their issuance. Judge, stating reasons, disallowed be answered. applied Appeals Ninth Circuit writ mandamus or prohibition. vacated It held provisions Procedure applicable 28 U.S.C. § 2246, statutory provision specifically relating use proceedings, did authorize discovery. Wilson v. Harris, 378 F.2d 141 (1967). 4 Because importance questions presented diversity views among appellate considered problem,1 we granted certiorari. 392 925, 88 2289, 20 1384. We agree with 2246 does inter ogatories except limited circumstances case; but conclude that, appropriate court, confronted establishes prima facie relief, may suitable procedures, including reasonably fashioned elicit necessary help 'dispose matter law justice require.' 2243. Accordingly, reverse remand reconsider before it light our judgment. II. 5 fundamental safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary lawless action. Its pre-eminent role recognized admonition Constitution that: 'The Privilege Writ Habeas Corpus shall suspended * *.' U.S.Const., Art. I, cl. 2. scope flexibility writ—its capacity reach all manner illegal detention—its ability cut through barriers form procedural mazes—have always emphasized jealously guarded lawmakers. very nature demands administered initiative essential insure miscarriages within its are surfaced corrected. 6 As Blackstone phrased it, 'the great efficacious writ, confinement.'2 said Fay Noia, 372 391, 401—402, 83 822, 829, 9 837 (1963), office 'to provide prompt remedy whatever society deems intolerable restraints.' Peyton Rowe, 391 54, 65—67, 1549, 1555, 426 (1968). 7 now established beyond reasonable dispute only grant hearings applicants, must do so showing. Townsend Sain, 293, 313, 745, 770 (1963); Brown Allen, 344 443, 464, 19, 73 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953). And has emphasized, taking into account fact petitioner, being custody, usually handicapped developing needed support detail alleged petition, allowed founder 'procedural morass.' Price Johnston, 334 266, 269, 68 1049, 92 1356 (1948). 8 There no higher duty under constitutional system, than careful processing adjudication petitions writs corpus, such person custody charges error, neglect, evil purpose resulted unlawful confinement deprived contrary law. insistently power conduct inquiry equal responsibility involves: language Congress, history decisions make clear plenary.' supra, 312, 757. In present case, problem tests reality these principles. asked establish existence rights those discover aid release. declaring granting litigants civil causes available Walker; if refuse conclude, affirm written interrogatories. address ourselves issues. III. 10 provides 'These rules govern procedure suits exceptions stated 81.' At time decision below 81(a)(2) provided, relevant part, 'except extent practice set forth statutes heretofore conformed actions equity.'3 11 second requirement—' conformity' practice—made 'prior September 16, 1938, actually used then equity.' F.2d, 144. No showing here contended can made. contends, however, rule requires generally pre-existing equity, contends general requirement met. 12 need consider contention took unnecessarily restricted view thrust 'conformity' requirement, because other reasons intended procedure, read exclude application proceedings. 13 is, course, true characterized 'civil.' See, e.g., Fisher Baker, 203 174, 181, 135, 51 142 (1906). But label gross inexact.4 Essentially, unique. sense. indication respect pretrial development evidence, equity extent' newly developed 1938 'civil' cases should apply avoid divergence theretofore substantially uniform. Although there little direct problem, 81(a)(2), concern draftsmen, matter, seems continuing applicability new areas enumerated 'specified' utilized modes practice. Otherwise, outside prejudice, particular analogy otherwise, where appropriate.5 14 Such specific intent draftsmen indicates nothing more nonspecific understanding would least, intention extend right, broad which, even ordinary litigation, 'one most significant innovations' rules. Hickman Taylor, 329 495, 500, 67 385, 91 451 (1947). any prior adoption Procedure. 15 considering illuminating note expansion early stages. Mooney Holohan, 294 103, 55 340, 79 791 (1935); Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 58 1019, 82 1461 (1938); Waley 316 101, 62 964, 86 1302 (1942). until many years later required independent determination factual ba claims convictions violated petitioner's rights. (1953); (1963). readily understandable indicated scanty contemporary exegesis available, contemplate 16 also some relevance 1948, when Congress enacted expressly referring right parties propound legislation obtaining affiants affidavits evidence. Again, 17 Indeed, difficult believe modification ill-suited problems character For example, 33, invoked, party 'adverse party.' illustrates, mean prisoner's although unable answer personal knowledge rulating Presumably could solicit answers officials reply 'under oath,' requires; clearly kind 'adversary party' contemplated rules, result literal invoke circuitous, burdensome, consuming. 18 unsuitability applying drafted reference peculiar problems. 19 By 26(b), give prisoner inquire 'any privileged, subject involved pending action,' admissible trial not. generously construed deal latitude 507, 385; 2A Barron & Holtzoff, 646. broad-ranging preliminary neither nor context proceeding. Except 'plaintiff' days after commencement court. take contest hearing required. Unavoidably, unless measure originator proceeding, exceedingly burdensome vexatious. interrogatory themselves since prepared prisoners, guidance restraint members bar. reason, too, violence efficient effective administration Great Writ. burden courts, prison officials, prosecutors, police, necessarily properly vastly increased; benefit counterbalanced delay elaborate proceduces entail. 21 availability activated own initiative, approval, considerable tactical advantage them prosecution efforts demonstrate error despite forceful ingenious argument counsel amici curiae,6 consideration cannot carry day. long march conclusion rewrite judicial interpretations. decide applies unless, conventional principles construction, effect congressional understanding. IV. To Rules' completely automatically virtue say way arrange procedures will allow development, purposes disposition petition. Petitioners discussed, 290—292, entitled plenary full opportunity presentation facts. provided once filed, petitioner cause, awarded 'forthwith,' issued. concludes cf. supra; 2254, one promptly. 23 Flexible oral testimony, deposition, affidavit interrogatory. 2246. Cf. §§ 2245, 2254(e). 'summarily hear determine facts, dispose require.'28 methods securing accomplish objective largely silent. Clearly, jurisdiction exercise present, fashion existing otherwise conformity usage. Where duties require inescapable obligation courts. Their confirmed All Writs Act, 1651. statute inclusion, substance, original Judiciary Act 'legislatively approved source instruments designed achieve rational ends law." 282, 1058, (1948), quoting Adams ex rel. McCann, 317 273, 63 236, 239, 87 268 rely issuing orders assist conducting inquiries. American Lithographic Co. Werckmeister, 221 603, 609, 31 676, 873 (1911) (subpoenas duces tecum); Bethlehem Shipbuildi g Corp. NLRB, 120 126, 127 (C.A.1st Cir. 1941) (order documents produced discovery). price explicitly function supply perform duty, prescribed Constitution, 'agreeable' usages law, 24 considers fair meaningful require,' either issue conjunction advanced parties, 'necessary (its jurisdiction) agreeable law.' 25 assume discretion pursue pursuit allegations them. aware sometimes induces fantasy paranoia rather fact. reason fully developed, able confined illegally therefore facilities adequate inquiry. Obviously, exercising power, familiar appropriate, found criminal elsewhere 'usages law.'7 26 judgment further accordance opinion. 27 Reversed remanded. BLACK, dissenting. 29 I Appeals' holding 141, Upon affirmance go write what appears me advisory directing t formulate legal system case. Fully agreeing Court's '(w)e interpretations.' doubt lower laws providing cases. complicated field making think enter valid delegation legislative Congress. Since us am along 30 complaints bar about Court-made venture suggestion number exceeded regret 'assume,' given blanket authority, 'courts (not) them.' makes skeptical assumption. Here having marihuana possession. remedies let him out jail. He apparently allege innocence, so, guilt innocence What admitting him. verdict resting truthful, honest verdict. must, therefore, guilty convicted. my dissent Kaufman 217, 231, 1068, 1076, 227, decided today. relevant, alleged, him, presumably marihuana, premises policeman, charge 'was reliable' 'who unreliable.' possible over telling officer 'unreliable' 'unreliable.' remains unreliable person's told found. Consequently defendant proved jury taken lays groundwork vast rule-making program. Perhaps might amiss mildly suggest like this, records contain guilt, treated final longer challenge, least collateral attack. admit Aguilar Texas, 108, 84 1509, 723 (1964), Spinelli 393 410, 584, 637 (1969), way, previously thought doing 32 HARLAN, whom WHITE joins, authorizes sought render effective. explicit narrow exercised sparingly, 'at large,' fear today's do. 34 furnishes apt illustration th differences between viewpoint majority. ante, 288-289, claimed information supplied informant. ordered unreliabilty arrested previous arrests searches same informant; convictions; ever unreliable. 35 apparent known arresting officer. knew officer's identity; testified reliability. Hence, obtained calling witness hearing. realize arguments precise question. satisfied face things possibly outright Appeals.1 36 troublesome aspect long-run implications. suggesting best solution permit each devise 'appropriate procedure' case-by-case basis. regards immediate future, approach unavoidable, body applications. broader standpoint dealt power. 2072. 37 several believing unsatisfactory range. fairness both petitioners adversaries, uniform throughout dependent varying 'discovery attitudes' judges. If period during differ distri district. Even assuming coherent finally emerge unifying influence decisions, unlikely thus generated devised. Appellate one, imperfectly informed additional suited meet needs dispatch They are, poorly situated lay down guidelines Moreover, course day-to-day likely suffer limitations accompany process. 38 considerations lead view, formulation accomplished conferred governing using method making, advice Judicial Conference committees obtained.2 These bodies well equipped assess dimensions solutions. deliberations free pressures piecemeal adjudication. resulting system. 39 My conviction strengthened recollection Miner Atlas, 363 641, 80 1300, 1462 (1960), events followed. sitting admiralty deposition. Responding opinion, see U.S., 651, earlier stirrings bar, Advisory Committee General Admiralty swiftly proposed authorizing kinds discovery, depositions. approval submission statute,3 went year decision.4 equally cooperative instance. 40 Part 41 STEWART, 42 concur 43 wholly inapplicable Contrary Brother judges carrying applications 'as 2243, inhibited inflexibly formalized getting cases, wide leeway 'discretion common sense.' Machibroda 368 487, 510, 514, 473.* 44 However, Harlan's dissenting today 242, 1082, joined, Some joined E.g. Sullivan 198 F.Supp. 624, 625—627 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1961). On occasions 'analogy.' Weigel, 387 632, 634, n. (C.A.9th 1967); Jelic Director Immigration, 106 14, (C.A.2d 1939) (opinion Clark, Reporter Procedure). Several E.g., Seals Wiman, 53, 64 (C.A.5th 1962); Schiebelhut 318 785, 786 (C.A.6th 1963) (28 2255 action). sustained effectuate policy corpus. Knowles Gladden, 254 643, 644—645 (D.C.Ore.1965), aff'd 761 1967). Others assumed discussion Fortner Balkcom, 380 816, 818 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *131 (Lewis ed. 1902). 399—415, Frank Mangum, 237 309, 346, 582, 595, 59 969 (Holmes, J., Hughes, dissenting) (1915), '(H)abeas cuts forms goes tissue structure. comes every preserved, opens they empty shell.' amended, July 1, 1968, read, actions.' amendment merely eliminated references inappropriate affect us. Report Practice F.R.D. 61, 164 (explanatory revision 81(a)(2)). degree characterization excessively simplifies complex discussed Cohen, Considerations Origins Corpus, Can.B.Rev. (1938), Cum Causa—The Emergence Modern Writ, 10, 172 (1940). 624 noncontroversial 6(b)(2), extension excusable Bowen Boles, 258 111 (D.C.N.D.W.Va.1966); 15(b), raised pleadings. Hamilton Hunter, 65 319 (D.C.Kan.1946). A. 131 (C. Wright 1960); Note, Discovery Col.L.Rev. 1296, 1299 concerning joinder class engendered debate. Mitchell Schoonfield, 285 728 (D.C.Md.1968); Hill Nelson, 272 790 (D.C.N.D.Calif.1967); Adderly Wainwright, 530 (D.C.M.D.Fla.1967). Multiparty 81 Harv.L.Rev. 1482 intimate aspects assisted greatly briefs curiae—the NAACP Legal Defense Educational Fund National Office Rights Indigent New York dissenting, agrees dissents substitute remote HARLAN expresses desirability formulating 2072, launching remarks, concluded express agreement field. repeat follow absense machinery invoked comprehensive materially different Criminal reliance usage opaque transparently inadequate. results meticulous promise much benefit. STEWART bases position brought Fourth Amendment entertained 'special circumstances.' prefer rest disagreement grounds, two reasons. First, fours Kaufman, action 2255. briefed argued conceivably distinctions types Amsterdam, Search, Seizure, Section 2255: A Comment, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. (1964). Second, happens, involve search-and-seizure issue, reasoning plainly cognizable appeal WHITE. brief played Kaplan, Continuing Work Committee: 1966 Amendments (I), 356, 357—358 specifies 90 reported 30A—30G, 32, 32B—32D, added amended 1961. arose 2255, counterpart presented, pointed 'many material corroborated disproved visitors' county jail confined, mail penitentiary sen , sources.' 514.

Category: 0