Opinion ID: 105074
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: papers and disposition in district court.

Text: Requests were sent by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to the clerks in all districts in which there were applications for habeas corpus subsequent to a denial of certiorari in the October 1950 Term. In addition to a request for all docket entries and orders or opinions, the clerks were requested to send copies of all pertinent papers filed in the action by the applicant or to answer a questionnaire concerning those papers. In the bulk of the cases, the original papers or copies of them were forwarded to the Administrative Office; these papers, together with the answered questionnaires in the other cases, were the basis of the following analysis.
Three applications for habeas corpus had been withdrawn and were unavailable; of the remaining 123, 17 were drawn by lawyers. Thirty-four failed to meet the minimum standards for showing some degree of familiarity with law referred to in connection with the petitions for certiorari. [14] Of 122 applications for which data were available, 101 were typed or printed. The number of pages ran slightly less than in the petitions for certiorari; [15] 67 applications for habeas corpus contained 9 pages or less, while 56 contained 10 or more.
Table 2 below shows to what degree the applicant informed the District Court of the previous certiorari proceedings, and demonstrates that in about 10% of the cases there was not even a reference by the applicant to the fact that he had petitioned for certiorari. Further, in the large majority of cases, there was simply an allegation that a petition for certiorari had been filed and denied. In less than 10% of the cases did the applicant file any papers which would serve to indicate to the District Court what questions were before the Supreme Court. TABLE 2. FILING OF PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN DISTRICT COURT [16] Total Cases for which data available__________ 123 100.0% Petition for Certiorari field: Certified Petition__________________ 1 Uncertified Petition________________ 10 Excerpts from Petition______________ 1 ________ Total, petition or excerpts filed_____________ 12 9.8 Mere reference to denial of certiorari__ 98 No reference to certiorari proceedings__ 13 ________ Total, no information as to contents of petition____________________________________ 111 90.2
Somewhat fewer papers, on a percentage basis, were filed by applications in the District Courts than in the Supreme Court concerning the record in the State courts. There seems no explanation for this difference. [17] Of chief significance, however, was the extent to which papers filed in the District Courts were alleged to have been presented to the Supreme Court in the petition for certiorari. It is clear that the District Courts may have learned in oral argument or by other means whether the papers had been filed previously in the Supreme Court, but since such information was thought impossible to obtain, it was necessary to limit the inquiry to allegations that the papers had also been before the Supreme Court. The almost negligible number of cases in which the papers filed were alleged also to have been before the Supreme Court is striking. Even in cases conducted throughout by apparently competent counsel, such allegations were often not made. The failure to make these allegations may reflect either a fear of counsel or applicants without counsel that a demonstration of the presentation made to the Supreme Court would prejudice their cases or perhaps a feeling that it is unimportant to the District Judge that the papers had also been before the Supreme Court. In any event, it has not been a practice, apparently, to allege what papers were before the Supreme Court. Columns 2 and 3 of Table 1, supra, set out information exactly parallel to that contained in Column 1, which shows what papers from the State proceedings were filed in the Supreme Court. Column 2 shows the same information for the District Court, and Column 3 shows how many of the papers before the Supreme Court and then filed in the District Court were alleged to have been filed in the Supreme Court. Comparison of Columns 1 and 3 shows to what extent papers actually before the Supreme Court were alleged to have been there. For example, in 30 cases the Supreme Court had some information concerning the opinion in the State proceedings. The District Court was told, however, that the opinion had been before the Supreme Court in only 3 of those 30 cases. Column 2 shows that altogether there were 21 cases in which the District Courts had information concerning the opinion. A synoptic view of the comparisons made in Table 1 can be had by comparing the line indicating the number of cases in which the record or excerpts were filed. Thus, in over 80% of the cases, the Supreme Court had some part of the State court record, while in just over 70% of the cases, the District Court had some part of the State court record. In less than 6% of the cases was the District Court told by allegation that the parts of the record before it had been in the Supreme Court.
The issues raised were of course approximately the same as those raised in the Supreme Court, with only insubstantial variation from the figures given above [18] for the types of claims raised in the Supreme Court. But of some significance was a comparison of the claims in the Supreme Court with those made by the same petitioners later in the District Courts. In the 125 cases for which data were available, the chief claim made in the Supreme Court was also the chief claim made in the District Court in 105 cases. That number, of course, is subject to some subjective error because of possibly differing interpretations of what the chief claim of an unclear and unlawyer-like petition is. Perhaps more significant are summaries made which show that the claim that was considered the chief claim in the Supreme Court reappeared, but not necessarily as the chief claim, in 107 of the District Court cases; conversely, in 117 cases, the chief claim before the District Court had been raised in the Supreme Court petition. These data indicate only that it cannot always be assumed that even on the same record and in the same course of proceedings, the emphasis on various claims raised will be the same. Further, in some cases, the claims raised in the District Courts may not have been made at all in the Supreme Court.
In only 1 case of the 126 was the writ of habeas corpus granted. The District Court had originally denied the application for the writ because of a reluctance to review an application already passed on by the highest State court, but after reversal on appeal, [19] the writ was granted. In 120, the application for the writ has been denied, and 5 are still pending, 1 on remand from appeal. Table 3 sets out the extent to which appeal to the Court of Appeals has been sought or taken. It shows that there have been decisions on appeal in 14 cases with reversals in 3. Of those 3 cases reversed and remanded, one is pending, in one the writ has been granted and in the third the application was withdrawn. TABLE 3. APPEAL FROM DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS Total Cases for which data available_________________________ 126 No entries as to appeal on District Court docket_____________ 66 Certificate of probable cause denied, or leave to appeal in forma pauperis denied_______________________________________ 29 Appeal dismissed; mandamus dismissed_________________________ 5 Appeal pending_______________________________________________ 8 Affirmed on appeal___________________________________________ 11 Reversed and remanded on appeal______________________________ 3 A variety of procedures were adopted in these cases by the District Courts in dealing with the applications. Chief among the orders entered other than to dismiss the applications without more were orders to show cause or to answer, as Table 4 shows. In 23 cases, a lawyer was appointed either as an amicus or as counsel for the applicant. In some cases, the writ of habeas corpus was issued to bring the applicant before the Court. Table 4 shows which of the devices were used and in what combinations. TABLE 4. PROCEDURES USED IN DISPOSING OF APPLICATIONS Total Cases for which data available_______________ 123 100.0% Applications disposed of without more______________ 56 45.6% Orders to Show Cause or Answer: Order to Show Cause____________________________ 37 Order to Show Cause; Counsel appointed for applicant________________________________ 4 Order to Answer________________________________ 3 Order to Answer; Amicus appointed_____ 3 Writs of Habeas Corpus issued: Writ issued___________________________________ 2 Writ issued; Counsel appointed for applicant 3 Writs and Orders: Writ Issued; Order to Show Cause_______________ 1 Writ Issued; Order to Show Cause; Counsel appointed for applicant_______________________ 5 Lawyers Appointed: As amicus, in combination with other orders already listed above_________________________ (3) As counsel for applicant, in connection with other orders already listed above____________ (12) As amicus without other order_________ 2 As counsel for applicant without other order________________________________________ 6 A hearing of some kind was given in 44 cases of the 122 for which data are available. [20] The other 22 cases not disposed of without more were disposed of by withdrawal of the application (one case) or after the answer, the report of the amicus, or both. Certain data concerning the hearings are set out in Table 5. Table 5 shows what procedures were used and how long the hearing lasted. It shows that the applicant was present at 26 hearings, with counsel also in 17 of those cases. The applicant was represented by counsel in 31 cases, but the applicant himself was not present in 14 of those 31 cases. The length of the hearings for which data were available was an hour or less in two-thirds of the cases. TABLE 5. PRESENCE AT HEARING AND LENGTH OF HEARING I. Total Cases in which hearings held________________________________ 44 Data unavailable__________________________________________________ 1 Applicant and counsel present_____________________________________ 17 Applicant present without counsel_________________________________ 9 Applicant absent but represented by counsel [21] _________________ 14 Applicant absent and not represented by counsel___________________ 3 II. Total Cases for which data as to length of hearing available [22] 24 Length of hearing: Fifteen minutes or less______________________________________ 2 Fifteen to thirty minutes____________________________________ 8 Thirty minutes to one hour___________________________________ 6 ____ Total, one hour or less_____________________________________ 16 ==== Two hours____________________________________________________ 1 Two and a half hours_________________________________________ 1 Three hours__________________________________________________ 1 Four hours___________________________________________________ 4 Three days___________________________________________________ 1 ____ Total, over one hour________________________________________ 8 The average time of disposition of applications for habeas corpus in the District Courts was 59.4 days, [23] as compared with the disposition time in the Supreme Court of 52.5 days. In the District Court, however, only 56 applications were dismissed without more, while in the Supreme Court all but 35, or 91 petitions for certiorari, were disposed of without further action such as the filing of a response by the State. For whatever significance it might have, the important figure seemed to be that showing the number of cases in which the District Court disposition time was greater than in the Supreme Court; of the 122 cases for which figures are available, 45 took longer from the time of filing until denial of the application for habeas corpus than they had in the Supreme Court. Of those 45, only 4 had been dismissed without further pleadings or action of some sort. In 98 cases, the District Courts indicated their reasons for denying the applications for habeas corpus. As will be seen from Table 6, the District Courts decided only about half of the cases directly on the merits, either holding against the applicant on the facts or on his constitutional claim. In 45, or almost half, of the 98 cases, the application was denied on various grounds bearing on the relation between the Federal and State courts in these cases. Twenty-nine of these 45 denials were based on the applicant's failure to exhaust the State remedy. Since this reason was often not amplified, it is not possible TABLE 6. GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OF APPLICATIONS IN DISTRICT COURTS Total Cases in Survey___________________________________________________ 126 Pending_____________________________________________________________ 5 Writ granted________________________________________________________ 1 Total cases for which data available________________________________ 120 I. Reasons Stated for Dismissal. Reasons not going directly to the merits: Issue fairly considered in State Court________________________ 7 Applicant had his day in State Court, and Federal Courts will not ordinarily reexamine________________________ 9 Failure to exhaust State remedy_______________________________ 29 ____ Total____________________________________________________________ 45 Reasons going directly to the merits: Want of a federal question____________________________________ 21 Applicant not within invoked Federal doctrine [24] ___________ 8 Claim not supported by facts__________________________________ 17 Insufficient facts alleged in support of claim________________ 2 ____ Total____________________________________________________________ 48 Miscellaneous: Application withdrawn by applicant____________________________ 3 Lack of jurisdictionwrong District_____________________ 1 Same issue formerly considered in a Federal Court_____________ 1 ____ Total___________________________________________________________ 5 No Reason Stated except that applicant not entitled to writ, or lack of jurisdiction to grant_________________________ 22 II. Probable Reasons where no reason stated. Issue fairly considered in State Court___________________________ 1 Want of a Federal question_______________________________________ 18 Applicant not within invoked Federal doctrine____________________ 1 Claim not supported by the facts_________________________________ 2 to classify these cases further. But from those cases in which a more detailed statement of the reason was made and from other information available in some cases, it is possible to say that there were several views below as to what the requirement of exhaustion implied. In some cases, the applicant had not complied with formal requirements, such as those prescribing the time of filing or the kind of papers to be filed for an appeal to a higher State court. In others, the applicant had fully invoked one remedy, but other State remedies were still available, or the remedy already invoked was, under the State procedural rules, available again. In some cases, of course, the applicant failed to allege or show any real attempt to invoke a State remedy. The other 16 of the 45 cases not decided directly on the merits were disposed of as the result of varying degrees of reliance on the State adjudication. As Table 6 shows, in some cases the judges below stated that the applicant had had his day in the State courts and the Federal courts will not ordinarily reexamine State denials of relief to prisoners, while in others they felt that the claim had been fairly considered in the State courts.