Document: 393 U.S. 122 89 S.Ct. 277 21 L.Ed.2d 246 Edgar H. SMITHv.Howard YEAGER, Warden. No. 399. Decided Nov. 12, 1968. Edward Bennett Williams, Steven M. Umin and Stephen F. Lichtenstein, for petitioner. PER CURIAM. 1 This petition a writ of certiorari presents the question whether petitioner's relinquishment an evidentiary hearing in federal habeas corpus proceeding taking place prior to Townsend v. Sain, 372 293, 83 745, 9 770, bars him from obtaining such on subsequent application made after was decided. 2 In 1957, petitioner convicted first-degree murder New Jersey court, sentenced death. The Supreme Court affirmed conviction, State Smith, 27 N.J. 433, 142 A.2d 890, subsequently denial motion new trial. 29 561, 150 769. 3 Petitioner thereafter sought United States District Jersey. During oral argument before June 5, 1961, counsel, referring then recent decision Rogers Richmond, 365 534, 81 735, 5 760, stated: 4 'The says your Honor may hold de novo if need be go into historical facts behind this case. I don't think it is necessary here. 'I limits himself record, that error, fundamental constitutional error case so overwhelming not stand here argue at any great length.' Appendix Petition, p. 69a. 6 did conduct hearing. Relying state trial denied application, holding, inter alia, confession, introduced his trial, product coercion. ex rel. Smith Jersey, D.C., 201 F.Supp. 272. Appeals affirmed. Cir., 322 F.2d 810.1 7 1965, again Court, requesting As supplemented, alleged relevant admissibility confession which were brought out which, proved, presented stronger coerced.2 without conducting hearing, noting issue coercion had been adjudicated proceeding. per curiam, Judge Biggs dissenting. Referring above-quoted statement by some remarks earlier stage 1961 proceeding,3 concluded waived claim 1961. 395 245. Rehearing en banc denied, Freedman dissenting,4 followed. 8 We note initially usual principles res judicata are inapplicable successive proceedings.5 Salinger Loisel, 265 224, 44 519, 68 L.Ed. 989; cf. Sanders States, 373 1, 1068, 10 148. Whatever standards waiver other circumstances, essential 'deliberately withheld newly asserted ground' proceeding, or 'otherwise abused writ.' 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) (1964 ed., Supp. III). At time Brown Allen, 344 443, 73 397, 97 469, indicated Court's discretion exercised only 'unusual circumstances,' U.S., 463, where 'vital flaw' existed procedure. 506, 397 (opinion Mr. Justice Frankfurter). supra, yet denied. recognized 'that opinions Allen * do provide answers all aspects problem lower courts, have reached widely divergent, fact often irreconcilable, results,' 310, 755, established criteria granting hearings 'which must considered supersede, extent inconsistencies, *.' 312, 757. Sain substantially increased availability proceedings, mandatory much what previously within broad Court. See also Fay Noia, 391, 822, 937. It least doubtful could obtained as law stood Indeed, time, argued with cogency 'no unusual circumstances calling hearing.' believe shoul placed worse position because counsel he right relinquished it. counsel's reasons obscure gesture noblesse oblige,6 we cannot now examine mind, presume intentionally known privilege, Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 58 1019, 82 1461, when privilege existence supposed waiver. short, conclude failure demand followed constitutes no abuse corpus. 11 'If, reason attributable inexcusable neglect evidence crucial adequate consideration developed compelled.' 317, 759. Petitioner's assertion comes principle controverted respondent record below. not, however, pass question, questions petition. These, well issues appropriately raised below, has anything occurred during 12 granted, judgment reversed, remanded court proceedings consistent opinion. 13 ordered. 14 Reversed remanded. 15 WHITE dissents would grant set argument. sought, three previous occasions—twice 361 861, 80 120, 103; 379 1005, 85 731, 706, once 376 928, 84 678, 623. worth present pleadings below expand clarify claims heretofore allegations, include physical harassment police, Biggs' dissenting opinion 245, 253, n. 12. On May 15, State's strike 'Amended and/or Supplemental Petition,' its concern complete satisfaction both parties. construed offer No explicit mention made, however. A reading entire colloquy though unambiguous, suggests, noted dissent discussion concerned 'the proceed upon original answer, supplemental sets pleadings.' 249, 4. participate. For reason, other, decided Appeals' first there denying rehearing banc, dispositive pointed chiefly relied petitioner, does appear support especially 547, 735.

Category: 0