Opinion ID: 106550
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The errors alleged by petitioners were as follows:

Text: (1) Testimony of witnesses contradict each other on the identification of the defendants. (2) Identification of clothes and weapons in error, no continuency of possession shown, nor ownership established, nor was ownership of these articles by the Defendants proven. (3) Testimony of many witnesses in direct conflict with each other and at times contradict each other, as to what happened and how it happened and by whom it was done. (4) That one witness perjured himself repeatedly and that his testimony was not stricken or thrown out. (5) That the presumption of innocence was never afforded the Defendants. (6) That the trial Judge was prejudiced against the Defendants throughout the entire trial. (7) That the trial Judge should have dismissed the case as the Defendants are not guilty as charged. (8) That exhibits were entered over objections that should not have been allowed to be entered. (9) That testimony was allowed over objections that should not have been allowed. (10) That Defendant was charged with robbing two specific companies that in fact were never proven to have been robbed. (11) That the Defendant was forced to sit at the same table with the two prosecutors and a policeman that was subpoenaed as a witness. (12) That after an order excluding witnesses from the courtroom the two main witnesses sat in the courtroom prior to testifying which had a substantial bearing on their testimony. (13) Unless Defendant is provided with a transcript and statement of facts at the county expense, he will be unable to prosecute this appeal. The Court places special emphasis on points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 as requiring considerably more than the Washington Supreme Court had before it if a constitutionally adequate review was to be afforded the petitioners. However, point 1 merely asserts contradictions in the testimony about the identification of the petitioners. Inconsistency in the evidence is no stranger to criminal trials and it is the task of the jury to sort out the testimony and determine the facts and the guilt or innocence of the defendants. A conflict of testimony presents but a mere question of fact, upon which the verdict of the jury is conclusive. It is enough to sustain the verdict that there was positive, direct testimony to the existence of the facts as found. Corinne Mill, Canal & Stock Co. v. Toponce, 152 U. S. 405, 408. See generally Galloway v. United States, 319 U. S. 372; Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U. S. 90. Accordingly, if a complete transcript of the trial had been placed before the Washington Supreme Court, the bare fact of inconsistency between witnesses would be quite beside the point. The governing question would be whether there was adequate evidence to support the jury's conclusion that the petitioners had indeed been identified and were guilty as charged. Here the record supplied shows that the accomplice Jennings identified the petitioners and this was even confirmed by his mother. Thus neither point 1 nor point 3 would raise any problem for an appellate review of the finding of guilt by the jury. Point 2 questions the admissibility of a gun and a jacket because of insufficient identification. But as petitioners' own attorney pointed out, the gun was identified by the accomplice Jennings, and petitioner Lorentzen's jacket was found in the get-away car which belonged to Lorentzen and was identified as looking like the one which Lorentzen wore during the commission of the crimes. The trial court ruled that the items had been adequately identified and were admissible under Washington law and that the objections of the defendants, as to the positiveness of the identification, went to the weight, rather than to the admissibility, of the evidence. The Supreme Court of Washington agreed. I doubt seriously the propriety and wisdom of questioning the judgment of the Washington Supreme Court as to what evidence is necessary to support the admissibility of an exhibit under Washington law. The Court apparently makes much of point 4, a general allegation of perjury, as not being intelligently reviewable upon the record made. This appears wholly untenable in the circumstances of this case. Here the trial was over, the evidence was concluded and the record closed. The jury had heard any attack the petitioners had to offer upon the credibility of the State's witnesses and had weighed the evidence and convicted the petitioners. A motion for a new trial had been denied. On the record made at the trial it was the jury's task to determine whether any witness was telling the truth and to accept or discard his testimony. The petitioners raised no issue of perjury at the trial or in their motion for a new trial. In these circumstances, it would take evidence outside the normal reporter's transcript to prove perjury, evidence which the trial court found they did not have, see United States v. Johnson, 327 U. S. 106, and evidence which could not be presented for the first time on direct appeal upon the record of a trial already made. [N]ew evidence which is 'merely cumulative or impeaching' is not, according to the often-repeated statement of the courts, an adequate basis for the grant of a new trial. Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U. S. 1, 9; State v. Brooks, 89 Wash. 427, 154 P. 795. A reporter's transcript might help petitioners prove that perjury had been committed at their trial but such proof would have to be made, if at all, not on direct appeal, but in some other proceeding. Point 4 also shares the difficulties inherent in points 3, 8 and 9, all of which are blanket allegations lacking any specificity. It would seem that in order to make these general assertions at all, it was necessary for petitioners to have at least some specific instances in mind, but neither the petitioners nor their attorney in any way (except as point 2 illuminates point 8) brought to the court's attention any particular instances of the kind generally alleged in these points. These contentions placed nothing before the appellate court for review, see, e. g., Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Watson, 287 U. S. 86; Erdmann v. Henderson, 50 Wash. 2d 296, 311 P. 2d 423; Nordlund v. Pearson, 91 Wash. 358, 157 P. 875, and if they are not to be disregarded the net effect would be to require a complete transcript in every case, contrary to the Court's own standards and contrary to the rules of Woods v. Rhay, 54 Wash. 2d 36, 338 P. 2d 332, which the Court in general approves. As for point 7, which essentially challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, the trial court found the evidence overwhelming and the Washington Supreme Court considered the evidence in the record placed before it as wholly adequate. The findings of the trial court are attached as an Appendix, post, p. 509, and it is incredible to me that the Court would hold this statement of the evidence at the trial to be an insufficient record upon which to affirm a jury's conclusion that the petitioners were guilty of robbing two motels. The Washington Supreme Court determined as a matter of law that point 10 was without merit since to prove the crime in this case it was unnecessary to prove the existence of the corporation and the ownership of the money. See note 5 of the Court's opinion, ante, p. 496. Similarly, point 6 was untenable since the only ground for the assertion of prejudice was that the trial judge made rulings adverse to them at the trial and since the challenge for prejudice was neither within the time nor in the form required by Washington law. As to point 5, the trial court found that the jury was specifically instructed in two different instructions as to the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof, the jury also being further reminded by counsel of the presumption of innocence in the selection of the jury. The Supreme Court of Washington held that this was enough under Washington law. It is also readily apparent that the transcript demanded by petitioners would be of no aid at all in disposing of points 11 and 12, since a transcript would not show who was or was not in the courtroom or what prejudice, if any, was suffered by the defendants by being seated at the same table with the prosecutor, which physical arrangement is normal in the trial court which tried petitioners. Finally, it was found by the trial court that points 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11 and 12 were never presented to the trial court at any stage of the trial or judgment and sentence in any form or fashion and, therefore, as the Supreme Court of Washington ruled, even if these assignments were meritorious, our rules would preclude a consideration of them. I think the record was adequate in this case. If it could have been better, it should not pass without comment that it is normally the lot of the appellant to take the initiative in preparing and presenting a record for appeal. If petitioners' counsel could have been of more help in preparing this recordand this does not appear to have been true herethe petitioners themselves must shoulder the blame, since they repeatedly stated that they did not want the help of appointed counsel, giving no reason whatsoever other than that they desired to represent themselves. Petitioners were notified prior to the hearing on their motion for a transcript that trial counsel was available. Their immediate response to the judge was that they did not desire counsel's help and that they would represent themselves. Petitioner Draper repeated these assertions at the hearing. While the court gave Draper every opportunity to represent himself and the other petitioners in connection with making this record, he also required petitioners' trial counsel to be present to support the petitioners' position. This counsel did and it appears that both at the hearing and upon appeal where he orally argued, he placed his resources and abilities at the disposal of petitioners.