Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/203/407/360767/
Timestamp: 2020-04-02 07:19:28
Document Index: 126968710

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2251', '§ 4701', '§ 551', '§ 4701', '§ 1', '§ 551']

United States Ex Rel. Darcy v. Handy, Warden, et al, 203 F.2d 407 (3d Cir. 1953) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Third Circuit › 1953 › United States Ex Rel. Darcy v. Handy, Warden, et al
United States Ex Rel. Darcy v. Handy, Warden, et al, 203 F.2d 407 (3d Cir. 1953)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - 203 F.2d 407 (3d Cir. 1953) Argued January 7, 1952
Reargued December 1, 1952
Decided March 24, 1953
As Amended March 28, 1953
Rehearing Denied April 29, 1953
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Charles J. Margiotti, Pittsburgh, Pa., (J. Dress Pannell, Harrisburg, Pa., Morton Witkin, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
A history of the proceedings prior to this appeal follows. Darcy was tried, convicted and sentenced in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, at No. 37 February Term 1948. A petition for a new trial was filed and was denied by that court, Darcy's conviction and sentence being affirmed. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and the judgment of the court below was affirmed, Mr. Justice Jones dissenting. See Commonwealth v. Darcy, 362 Pa. 259, 66 A.2d 663. An application for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States was denied. See 338 U.S. 862, 70 S. Ct. 96, 94 L. Ed. 528.
Darcy next filed a petition for habeas corpus to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. This was the first petition for habeas corpus filed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. It was denied without opinion. An application for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States was denied. See 338 U.S. 862, 70 S. Ct. 96, 94 L. Ed. 528.
The instant case then came on for further hearing on April 10 and 11, 1951. Darcy moved orally in the alternative for (1) the writ, or (2) for an additional stay pending application by him to the Supreme Court of the United States for certiorari. On April 11, 1951, the court below dismissed the petition, pointing out that by the terms of the orders the stay of execution was at an end. The order of dismissal included a provision denying any further stay of execution. The court below filed an opinion reported sub nom. United States ex rel. Darcy v. Handy, D.C., 97 F. Supp. 930. At the time of the hearing of April 10 and 11 Darcy, as indicated, had not yet applied to the Supreme Court of the United States for certiorari from the denial by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania of the second petition for habeas corpus. After the dismissal of the petition and the denial of further stay by the court below application for certiorari was made to the Supreme Court of the United States and the application was denied. See Com. of Pennsylvania ex rel. Darcy v. Claudy, 342 U.S. 837, 72 S. Ct. 61, 96 L. Ed. 632. Darcy meanwhile had appealed to this court.3
While it is clear that the court below denied any further stay and dismissed the petition, the route by which the court below reached its final conclusion is not entirely certain. As has been said the court below issued an order in the nature of a rule to show cause on the petition4 and a motion to dismiss the petition as insufficient in law was made orally by the Commonwealth. The court below at this point apparently was following the technique laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States by Mr. Justice Roberts, in Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 284, 61 S. Ct. 574, 578, 85 L. Ed. 830. Mr. Justice Roberts stated that "* * * if, upon the face of the petition, it appears that the party is not entitled to the writ, the court may refuse to issue it. Since the allegations of such petitions are often inconclusive, the practice has grown up of issuing an order to show cause, which the respondent may answer. By this procedure the facts on which the opposing parties rely may be exhibited, and the court may find that no issue of fact is involved. In this way useless grant of the writ with consequent production of the prisoner and of witnesses may be avoided where from undisputed facts or from incontrovertible facts, such as those recited in a court record, it appears, as a matter of law, no cause for granting the writ exists. On the other hand, on the facts admitted, it may appear that, as matter of law, the prisoner is entitled to the writ and to a discharge. This practice has long been followed by this court * * * and by the lower courts. * * * It is a convenient one, deprives the petitioner of no substantial right, if the petition and traverse are treated, as we think they should be, as together constituting the application for the writ, and the return to the rule as setting up the facts thought to warrant its denial, and if issues of fact emerging from the pleadings are tried as required by the statute."
The first part of the opinion of the court below, 97 F. Supp. at pages 932-934, advances a number of grounds why the writ and the stay were denied. The principal reasons explicitly advanced were that there were no extraordinary circumstances of peculiar urgency which required the issuance of the writ,5 that a further stay would have made void under 28 U.S.C. § 2251, the proceedings against Darcy in the State Court, and that the issuance of the writ would have disturbed needlessly that delicate balance of power which must be maintained between the State and Federal sovereigns. At the time the final order was entered in the case, April 11, 1951, and at the time the opinion was handed down by the court below, May 17, 1951,6 Darcy, as has been said, had not yet applied to the Supreme Court of the United States for certiorari from the order denying the second petition for habeas corpus filed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The application for certiorari was made on June 12, 1951, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 8, 1951. It is clear therefore that at all times when the case was before the court below Darcy had not exhausted his State remedy. See Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S. Ct. 587, 94 L. Ed. 761. No explicit reference is made to this fact in the opinion of the court below and it is not clear that this was a deciding or a potent factor in causing the court to refuse to grant either the writ or the stay. But it should be noted that the court in its opinion, 97 F. Supp. at page 934, quoting from Morgan v. Horrall, 9 Cir., 175 F.2d 404, 407, said: "`If some rational balance is to be preserved in the matter of handling petitions for writs of habeas corpus in Federal District Courts it is proper that petitioners should be required to exhaust available remedies under the present liberal procedure which seems wholly adequate to meet a situation of the character here presented.'" It is probable that this quotation was intended by the court below to support the proposition that Darcy had not secured a stay of execution from either the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania or from the Supreme Court of the United States on the presentation of his second petition for habeas corpus to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The reference, however, may be directed to the fact that when the instant case was before the court below on April 10 and 11, Darcy had not made an application for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States from the denial of his second petition for habeas corpus to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Having decided, however, for the reasons thus stated or implied in the first part of its opinion, 97 F. Supp. at pages 932-934, the court below then stated, mid-opinion: "For the foregoing reasons, we refused to grant either the writ or the stay."
The court then went on to say: "What of the motion to dismiss?", and quoted from the concurring opinion in United States ex rel. Auld v. Warden, 3 Cir., 187 F.2d 615, 621, as follows: "`* * * judicial power to dismiss a petition on its merits is not destroyed by the statutory limitation on the granting of affirmative relief.'" See 97 F. Supp. at pages 934-935. The court below seemingly construed the words just quoted to the effect that if a United States district court cannot grant the relief sought by a petition for habeas corpus or even entertain it because it is insufficient in law it nonetheless possesses the jurisdiction, the power, to dismiss the petition. This doctrine is sound, of course, but inherent in its application is the principle that the grounds alleged in the petition, viewed in the light of the undisputed or incontrovertible facts shown by the record of the proceedings in the State trial court, must be insufficient in law to afford the relief sought by the petitioner.
The court below concluded its opinion by stating, 97 F. Supp. at page 942: "Since it appears that petitioner is not entitled to a writ and that his petition is without merit * * * we have no alternative but to dismiss." It would appear from the opinion and from the transcript of the record of the proceedings before the court below on April 5, 10 and 11, 1951, that the court below was basing its final conclusions on the position that the allegations of the petition were improbable and unbelievable in the light of the record of Darcy's trial in the Court of Oyer and Terminer, as contended by the Commonwealth. But the undisputed and incontrovertible facts demonstrated by the Oyer and Terminer record do not contradict some of the pertinent allegations of the petition as will be shown hereinafter. The court below erroneously believing that the uncontrovertible and undisputed facts showed that Darcy was not entitled to the relief sought dismissed the petition without affording petitioner the opportunity to support the allegations by evidence. The court below seemed to be of the view that it was proceeding strictly in accordance with the rubric of Walker v. Johnston, but it was not. See 97 F. Supp. at page 941. The entire picture is rendered all the more cloudy and obscure because the court below seemed to be proceeding, at least to some degree and on occasion as if upon final hearing.7 It is desirable to repeat here the language of Mr. Justice Roberts in Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. at page 287, 61 S. Ct. at page 579: "The Government's contention that his [the petitioner's] allegations are improbable and unbelievable cannot serve to deny him an opportunity to support them by evidence. On this record it is his right to be heard." It is necessary therefore to analyze briefly the petition for habeas corpus and the record of the proceedings of the Court of Oyer and Terminer filed in the instant case.
Some of the allegations of the petition — those which are referred to specifically in item "(1)" of the foregoing paragraph — would, if proved, justify the issuance of the writ, State remedy being exhausted. If Darcy's trial was conducted in an atmosphere of hysteria and prejudice, Darcy was deprived of the rights guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Shepherd v. Florida, 341 U.S. 50, 51, 71 S. Ct. 549, 95 L. Ed. 740. Even if these allegations are "improbable" or "unbelievable", to employ the words of Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. at page 284, 61 S. Ct. 574, Darcy cannot be deprived of the opportunity to support them by evidence again assuming exhaustion of State remedy. The difficulty in affirming the decision of the court below lies in the circumstance that the "undisputed" and "incontrovertible" facts which appear from the record made in the Court of Oyer and Terminer are insufficient to controvert the broad allegations of the petition.
It must also be remembered that at the time of Darcy's trial before the Court of Oyer and Terminer the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth v. DePofi, 1949, 362 Pa. 229, 66 A.2d 649, declaring the whole of the Act of 1947 unconstitutional, Mr. Justice Jones dissenting, had not been handed down. The state of the rules of evidence following the amendments to the Act of 1911 effected by the Act of 1947 was a very confused one as the Presiding Judge at Darcy's trial in the Court of Oyer and Terminer stated. Darcy by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in the DePofi case was in effect tried under rules which were changed substantially during the course of the proceedings. Compare the circumstances presented by a criminal proceeding in a United States District Court in Sunal v. Large, 332 U.S. 174, 67 S. Ct. 1588, 91 L. Ed. 1982. See also the dissenting opinions by Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Rutledge. Bear in mind that an unconstitutional statute was involved: not an interpretation of a constitutional statute, albeit by the Supreme Court of the United States as in Sunal. The situation presented is the reversed image of that set out in Ex parte Yarborough, 110 U.S. 651, 4 S. Ct. 152, 28 L. Ed. 274, where conviction was had under a statute alleged to be unconstitutional. But should counsel for a defendant in a capital case be compelled to speculate as to the constitutionality of a statute which purported to afford the defendant substantial rights? To say that the Pennsylvania Act of 1947 deals only with the admission of evidence, and therefore is of a procedural rather than of a substantive nature, is to deal again with the wearisome clichés of where form ends and substance begins. Reliance upon the 1947 Act, if there was such reliance, struck to the heart of the question as to whether Darcy should live or die. As Judge Learned Hand said in United States ex rel. Kulick v. Kennedy, 2 Cir., 157 F.2d 811, 813, the writ of habeas corpus is available not only to determine points of jurisdiction, stricti juris, but also "* * * whenever else resort to it is necessary to prevent a complete miscarriage of justice." Under the circumstances of Darcy's trial Darcy's counsel may have been lead into a trap created by the statute respecting the vital issues of the degree of murder and the penalty, whether life imprisonment or death, to be imposed by the jury under Section 701 of the Pennsylvania Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, 18 P.S.Pa. § 4701. If so, there was a miscarriage of justice. Certainly Darcy's counsel could have had good reasons for concluding that the 1947 Act was constitutional. Compare the opinions of Chief Justice Maxey and Justice Jones in the DePofi case.11
Darcy was entitled to be competently defended by counsel learned in the law. Though questions of degrees of competency and learning may always be present there is assuredly a level below which the court-room performance of counsel representing a defendant in a capital case may not sink or the Fourteenth Amendment will be encountered. It is not necessary here to discuss or determine questions of degree, what degree of negligence or incompetence may be sufficient, or what insufficient, to void a criminal trial. If Darcy's counsel was so negligent or incompetent that he was deprived thereby of a valid defense or suffered the imposition of a penalty of death, a constitutional question is presented. See Tompsett v. State of Ohio, 6 Cir., 146 F.2d 95, 98-99, and the authorities therein cited; United States ex rel. Feeley v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 166 F.2d 976, 980-981; Jones v. Huff, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 254, 152 F.2d 14, 15-16; United States v. Wight, 2 Cir., 176 F.2d 376, 378-379; United States v. Bergamo, 3 Cir., 154 F.2d 31, 34-35; Abraham v. State, 228 Ind. 179, 184, 91 N.E.2d 358, 360; Miller v. Hudspeth, 164 Kan. 688, 707, 192 P.2d 147, 162. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 82 L. Ed. 1461, and Miller v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 176 F.2d 111. See in particular Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 312 Pa. 543, 546, 168 A. 244, 245; Commonwealth v. Balles, 160 Pa. Super. 148, 154, 50 A.2d 729, 732, and Commonwealth v. Jodlowsky, 163 Pa.Super. 284, 286, 60 A.2d 836, 837. Nor should it be deemed to be a pertinent distinction that the defendant's counsel is selected by himself or by members of his family or his friends rather than appointed by the court. See Sanchez v. State, 199 Ind. 235, 157 N.E. 1.
If, on the other hand, Darcy's counsel exercised his judgment and concluded for sufficient reasons that he could rely on the constitutionality of the Act of 1947, another question also relating to Darcy's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment comes before the court. See Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 461, 27 S. Ct. 556, 51 L. Ed. 879. Cf. Boyd v. State, 94 U.S. 645, 24 L. Ed. 302; Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 35 S. Ct. 582, 59 L. Ed. 969; Ross v. Oregon, 227 U.S. 150, 33 S. Ct. 220, 57 L. Ed. 458, and United States v. General Electric Company, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 80 F. Supp. 989, 1004. The two questions, however, have different operative facts and in the absence of a finding by the court below as to why Darcy's counsel offered no testimony on his behalf an opinion which might be purely advisory should not be hazarded. See the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Stone and Mr. Justice Cardozo in Borden's Farm Product Co. v. Baldwin, 293 U.S. 194, 213, 55 S. Ct. 187, 193, 79 L. Ed. 281.13 These and kindred matters should also be examined by the court below on remand and appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law should be made.
One other difficult question remains for discussion, again in a delicate area. As has been repeatedly stated, at the time the court below entered its final judgment, viz., on April 11, 1951, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had denied Darcy's second petition for habeas corpus but no application for certiorari had been made to the Supreme Court of the United States.14 On this date the relator had not exhausted his State remedy. The first hearing before the court below on the instant petition commenced on Thursday, April 5, 1951, and continued throughout that day. It was pointed out by the court that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was meeting on Monday, April 9, and that Darcy would have an opportunity to present his second petition for habeas corpus to that Court for appropriate action on that day. Thus, Darcy would be and was afforded an opportunity to take at least the first step toward the exhaustion of his State remedy. The court below expressly stated that it would continue the hearing on the instant petition for habeas corpus to Tuesday, April 10, admonishing counsel for Darcy to be then present. It also expressly extended the stay of execution of Darcy's sentence until that day.15 The court below also pointed out that if the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania or the Supreme Court of the United States did not grant a stay, a further application for stay of execution would have to be made to it. But it was apparent that if the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied Darcy's second petition and he was to have the opportunity to exhaust his State remedy by an application for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, a further stay was necessary — at least beyond Wednesday, April 11, when the final order of the court below was handed down. If a stay was not granted the case might become moot by reason of Darcy's execution. A stay could have been granted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,16 or by the Supreme Court of the United States. Execution of the sentence could have been further stayed by the court below if Darcy's request had not been refused.
The issue of whether Darcy had a fair trial was one confided to the court below by the Constitution of the United States. It was the duty of that court to determine that issue, as it attempted to do. The court below refused to continue the stay and a new stay order was issued by this court. It examined the issues as to whether the stay should be continued as well as the gist of the controversy — viz., whether Darcy had received a fair trial. In the light of all the circumstances it must be concluded that the court below desired to afford Darcy a full and fair opportunity to exhaust his State remedy and that the decision of the court below should not be affirmed on the ground that when the final order on April 11, 1951 was entered Darcy had not then exhausted his State remedy as he has now. Justice requires the case be treated as one in which Darcy has exhausted his State remedy as of April 11, 1951.18 The very recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 73 S. Ct. 397, and in United States ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, 344 U.S. 561, 73 S. Ct. 391, do not require a different conclusion. The crime which Darcy admittedly committed was a brutal one, meriting severest moral condemnation, but he must be granted his full legal rights. Justice must be done for him as it must be done for all.
On April 10, 1951 the district court resumed the hearing on the relator's petition. The hearing was concluded on April 11th, on which day the court dismissed the petition, denied a further stay of execution and stated that a memorandum opinion setting out the reasons for its action would be filed subsequently. The opinion was filed on May 17, 1951. 97 F. Supp. 930. Immediately after the dismissal by the district court of relator's petition for a writ of habeas corpus he took an appeal to this court and applied to us for a stay of his execution which we granted pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
The exact route by which the district court reached its conclusion to dismiss the petition is not entirely clear. At the time that it acted the contentions raised in the petition had been presented to and rejected by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania but an application to the Supreme Court of the United States for certiorari had neither been made nor denied. Referring to the rule laid down in Darr v. Burford, 1950, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S. Ct. 587, 94 L. Ed. 761, the court appears to have concluded that the relator had not yet exhausted his state remedies and accordingly refused to grant the writ. The court, however, went further in its opinion and proceeded to consider on its merits the respondents' motion to dismiss the petition as insufficient in law to justify the issuance of a writ.
* The first reason alleged by the relator is that the jurors who convicted him and fixed his punishment at death were influenced and prejudiced against him as a result of hysteria and prejudice which swept the county seat of Doylestown as a result of the Zeitz and Foster trial and verdict in the preceding week and by reason of certain statements and actions of the judge who had presided at that trial. Specifically the allegations of the petition are that the relator was placed on trial at Doylestown on Monday of the week immediately following the trial and conviction of Zeitz and Foster and that upon their conviction Judge Calvin S. Boyer, who presided at their trial, openly and publicly praised the jury for their verdict, his remarks being reported in the local newspaper.2
In support of these allegations the petition avers that a number of the members of the jury which convicted the relator have since been interviewed and have stated that if the relator's prior good character had been presented to them as a defense it would have influenced their verdict with respect to the imposition of the death penalty. These statements by the trial jurors ought not to be considered, however, since it was wholly improper to have obtained them. For a strong public policy prohibits such subsequent interrogation of jurors with respect to their actions as jurors or as to what their actions might have been under other circumstances. To tolerate such procedure would be to permit a body blow at the integrity of the jury system itself. This court has recently had occasion to refer with disapproval to a somewhat analogous practice with respect to a trial juror in a criminal case in United States ex rel. Daverse v. Hohn, 3 Cir., 1952, 198 F.2d 934. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has repeatedly condemned the practice of interviewing jurors after verdict and obtaining from them ex parte unsworn statements in answer to undisclosed questions and representations by the interviewers. Its condemnation of the practice was reiterated in its opinion denying the relator's second petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in that court. Commonwealth ex rel. Darcy v. Claudy, 1951, 367 Pa. 130, 133-134, 79 A.2d 785, 786, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 837, 72 S. Ct. 61, 96 L. Ed. 632. The practice cannot be tolerated if the integrity of the jury system is to be preserved.7
"If the current petition is made upon the same grounds as an earlier one, it should state fully any evidence now available in its support that was not offered before and explain failure to present it. On the jurisdictional questions appropriate for habeas corpus, the petitioner may not be barred from proof by newly discovered evidence, but it is not asking too much that his petition disclose that he has it and a basis for appraising its relevance and effect. He should not be precluded from raising new grounds of unconstitutionality in a later petition, especially in view of the unsettled character of our constitutional doctrines of due process. But the facts that make the new grounds applicable should appear. If federal relief is sought on the grounds that state law affords no remedy, or his resort thereto has been obstructed and he has been unable to present his case to a state court, the facts relied on should be clearly and fully set forth." 344 U.S. at pages 547-548, 73 S. Ct. at page 430.
This order entered by Judge Follmer on April 3, 1951, was, in effect, a rule to show cause
On April 5, 1951, the court below continued the stay of execution, theretofore granted by it, until 10:00 A. M., Tuesday, April 10, 1951, stating that if the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania did not grant a stay of execution it would be necessary for further application to be made to the court below if the stay order was to be continued in effect
This court by its order of April 11, 1951, stayed the execution of Darcy, "pending the hearing and determination by the Court of the appeal in the above entitled case."
See Order of Judge Follmer filed April 3, 1951, and the order of Chief Judge Watson and Judge Murphy filed April 5, 1951
The court below cited the decision of this court in United States ex rel. Auld v. Warden, 3 Cir., 187 F.2d 615
The opinion was filed above five weeks after the court entered its final order. Naturally, some time was consumed in preparing this lengthy opinion
The matter assuredly is not clear of doubt. At the hearing of April 10 before the court below, counsel for Darcy stated: "If the Court please, I did not come prepared to argue on the merits." The court replied, "That is what this hearing is for, sir, the merits of whether or not there should be a continuance of the stay order and whether or not we should entertain that petition." Transcript of the hearing before the court below of April 10, 1951, at p. 88. See also id., pp. 81, 83-4, and 88-9. The transcript as a whole does not present a clear-cut picture as to whether the court was proceeding solely on Darcy's application for a further stay of execution or whether the extended argument and colloquy were directed to the entire relief sought by the petition, viz., the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. But it is clear that the court denied the writ, denied a further stay and dismissed the petition
The circumstances attendant upon this incident, as alleged in the petition and as appears from the record, are as follows. Foster and Zeitz, co-actors with Darcy in the crime, were found guilty of first degree murder, the jury fixing the penalty at death. The Foster and Zeitz trial was concluded on Friday, June 4, 1948. After the jury had returned its verdict Judge Calvin S. Boyer praised its members, stating according to the Doylestown Daily Intelligencer, "I don't see how you could, under the evidence, have reached any other verdict. Your verdict may have a very wholesome effect on other young men in all vicinities who may come to realize the seriousness of the folly in which so many young men indulge these days. The only hope of stemming the tide of crime by youth is to impose the law which you have indicated by your decision."
Counsel for Darcy in the habeas corpus proceeding in the court below in open court during the argument and colloquy went much further in attacking Darcy's counsel at the trial before the Court of Oyer and Terminer than they did in the petition for habeas corpus. They asserted in the court below that Darcy was defended by counsel of "such gross negligence and incompetency" that his trial was a legal sham. See transcript of April 11, 1951, p. 107. The allegations of incompetency of counsel set up in the second petition for habeas corpus filed with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania were also stronger than those set up in the petition for habeas corpus in the court below. The question remains one of degree, however. A fair reading of the whole petition for habeas corpus filed in the court below shows that Darcy attacks his trial counsel on the grounds that he was not diligent, was negligent and was incompetent to such a degree that he, Darcy, was not afforded a fair trial
As has been pointed out, Darcy's trial commenced three days after the trial of Foster and Zeitz had been concluded. No application for change of venue was made by Darcy's counsel though he suggested that he would make such a motion when, at the close of the second day, June 8, it appeared that the panel might be exhausted. Darcy's counsel apparently had in mind the provisions of Section 1 (Third) of the Pennsylvania Act of March 18, 1875, P.L. 30, 19 P.S.Pa. § 551, which provide for a change of venue when the panel has been exhausted
See also the opinion of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and that of Mr. Justice Jones, dissenting, in Commonwealth v. Darcy (Darcy's appeal from the judgment of the Court of Oyer and Terminer), 362 Pa. 259, 66 A.2d 663
It must be noted in respect to this issue that Darcy's mental condition, even if it was such as not to amount to mental illness, incompetency, or "insanity" in the legal sense, may nonetheless have been relevant to the imposition of the penalty upon him by the jury under Section 701 of the Act of June 24, 1939
Mr Justice Stone and Mr. Justice Cardozo stated, "We are in accord with the view that it is inexpedient to determine grave constitutional questions upon a demurrer to a complaint, or upon an equivalent motion, if there is a reasonable likelihood that the production of evidence will make the answer to the questions clearer."
The application for certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court of the United States on June 12, 1951, as we have stated. The extended period of time intervening between April 11 and June 12, 1951, suggests that the technique of exhausting the State remedy was not too hotly pressed. The record was an extended one, however
It is not clear from the record whether a stay of execution was sought in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the denial of the petition for habeas corpus to permit Darcy to file an application to the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Murphy said that none was filed. It appears that no application for a stay was made to the Supreme Court of the United States
See the colloquy between the court and counsel on the final day of the hearing in the court below, viz., on April 11, 1951. Transcript pp. 139-146. See also D.C., 97 F. Supp. 930, 933
Such a course also will save much time. Otherwise Darcy, in our view, will be compelled to start a new proceeding in the court below
It must be borne in mind, as stated in the body of this opinion, that pursuant to Section 701, Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, 18 P.S.Pa. § 4701, the jury not only finds whether or not the person charged is guilty of murder of the first or second degree but also fixes the penalty to be imposed upon him, viz., either death or life imprisonment
Dorsey v. Gill, 1945, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 9, 148 F.2d 857, 869-871, certiorari denied 325 U.S. 890, 65 S. Ct. 1580, 89 L. Ed. 2003; Darr v. Burford, 1950, 339 U.S. 200, 215, 70 S. Ct. 587, 94 L. Ed. 761; Brown v. Allen, 1953, 344 U.S. 443, 73 S. Ct. 397
The petition alleges that the Doylestown Daily Intelligencer quoted Judge Boyer as saying:
The petition alleges that in the issue of the Doylestown Daily Intelligencer for June 12, 1948 Judge Boyer is reported to have stated in sentencing the young man, Robert White:
Act of March 18, 1875, P.L. 30, § 1, 19 P.S.Pa. § 551
See, e. g., Frank v. Mangum, 1915, 237 U.S. 309, 335, 35 S. Ct. 582, 59 L. Ed. 969; Moore v. Dempsey, 1923, 261 U.S. 86, 91, 43 S. Ct. 265, 67 L. Ed. 543; Powell v. State of Alabama, 1932, 287 U.S. 45, 51, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158
Meidreich v. Lauenstein, 1914, 232 U.S. 236, 246, 34 S. Ct. 309, 58 L. Ed. 584; Ownbey v. Morgan, 1921, 256 U.S. 94, 110-111, 41 S. Ct. 433, 65 L. Ed. 837; Diggs v. Welch, 1945, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 5, 148 F.2d 667, 670, certiorari denied 325 U.S. 889, 65 S. Ct. 1576, 89 L. Ed. 2002; United States ex rel. Weber v. Ragen, Warden, 7 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 579, 586
See Woollomes v. Heinze, 9 Cir., 1952, 198 F.2d 577
Powell v. State of Alabama, 1934, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158
Smith v. O'Grady, 1941, 312 U.S. 329, 61 S. Ct. 572, 85 L. Ed. 859; Williams v. Kaiser, 1945, 323 U.S. 471, 65 S. Ct. 363, 89 L. Ed. 398; Tomkins v. State of Missouri, 1945, 323 U.S. 485, 65 S. Ct. 370, 89 L. Ed. 407; House v. Mayo, 1945, 324 U.S. 42, 45-46, 65 S. Ct. 517, 89 L. Ed. 739; Wade v. Mayo, 1948, 334 U.S. 672, 684, 68 S. Ct. 1270, 92 L. Ed. 1647; Uveges v. Com. of Pennsylvania, 1948, 335 U.S. 437, 69 S. Ct. 184, 93 L. Ed. 127. But compare Betts v. Brady, 1942, 316 U.S. 455, 62 S. Ct. 1252, 86 L. Ed. 1595
Ex parte Haumesch, 9 Cir., 1936, 82 F.2d 588; Hudspeth, Warden v. McDonald, 10 Cir., 1941, 120 F.2d 962, 964, certiorari denied 314 U.S. 617, 62 S. Ct. 110, 86 L. Ed. 496; Andrews v. Robertson, 5 Cir., 1944, 145 F.2d 101, certiorari denied 324 U.S. 874, 65 S. Ct. 1013, 89 L. Ed. 1427; Tompsett v. State of Ohio, 6 Cir., 1944, 146 F.2d 95, certiorari denied 324 U.S. 869, 65 S. Ct. 916, 89 L. Ed. 1424; Morton v. Welch, 4 Cir., 1947, 162 F.2d 840, certiorari denied 332 U.S. 779, 68 S. Ct. 44, 92 L. Ed. 363; United States ex rel. Feeley v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 976; Moss v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 1948, 167 F.2d 683, certiorari denied 334 U.S. 860, 68 S. Ct. 1519, 92 L. Ed. 1780; Merritt v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 1948, 170 F.2d 739
Likewise it has been held in cases where qualified counsel have been appointed for a defendant by the court that errors of judgment committed by such counsel in the conduct of the defense do not amount to a deprivation of due process of law. Conley v. Cox, Warden, 8 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 786; Diggs v. Welch, 1945, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 5, 148 F.2d 667, certiorari denied 325 U.S. 889, 65 S. Ct. 1576, 89 L. Ed. 2002; Sweet v. Howard, 7 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 715, certiorari denied 336 U.S. 950, 69 S. Ct. 877, 93 L. Ed. 1105; United States v. Wight, 2 Cir., 176 F.2d 376, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 950, 70 S. Ct. 478, 94 L. Ed. 586; United States ex rel. Weber v. Ragen, Warden, 7 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 579.
See Tompsett v. State of Ohio, 6 Cir., 1944, 146 F.2d 95, 98, certiorari denied 324 U.S. 869, 65 S. Ct. 916, 89 L. Ed. 1424
Glasser v. United States, 1942, 315 U.S. 60, 71, 62 S. Ct. 457, 86 L. Ed. 680
Mooney v. Holohan, 1935, 294 U.S. 103, 112-113, 55 S. Ct. 340, 79 L. Ed. 791