Document: 410 U.S. 690 93 S.Ct. 1203 35 L.Ed.2d 637 J. Edwin LaVALLEE, Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facilityv.Pasquale DELLE ROSE. No. 72—905. Decided March 19, 1973. PER CURIAM. 1 The State New York petitions for certiorari to review the adverse determination Court Appeals in this federal habeas corpus proceeding directing release* respondent Pasquale Delle Rose. Rose was serving a life sentence premeditated murder his wife 1963. At trial, occurring before Jackson v. Denno, 378 368, 84 1774, 12 908 (1964), convicted by jury which chose credit has two confessions over protestation accidental involvement, and presumably found them be voluntary. On appeal, appellate court directed trial hold special hearing determine voluntariness accordance with People Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179 (1965), State's procedural response Court's decision supra. 2 remand court, rested on record, respondent, addition relying testified own behalf. After extensively summarizing evidence respondent's explanations certain confession statements, concluded: 3 'On all evidence, both at hearing, after considering totality circumstances, including omission warn defendant right counsel against self-incrimination, I find decide that respective police district attorney were, respects, voluntary legally admissible trial. . .' 4 basis, conviction affirmed courts, 33 A.D.2d 657, 27 882, 317 358, 265 770 (1970), denied certiorari, 402 913, 91 1395, 28 656 (1971). 5 Respondent then petitioned United States District writ alleging were involuntary. That held since state judge had 'neglected say how far he credited—and what extent, if any, discounted or rejected' testimony him, there no 'adequate' within meaning U.S.C. § 2254(d), would have entitled court's findings presumption correctness placed burden establishing convincing conclusion erroneous. therefore its involuntary, ordered discharged from custody unless retried, 342 F.Supp. 567. A divided panel Second Circuit affirmed, 468 F.2d 1288. 6 opinion did not meet requisites 2254(d) provides relevant part: 7 '(A) merits factual issue, made competent jurisdiction evidenced written finding, opinion, other reliable adequate indicia, shall presumed correct, applicant establish it otherwise appear, .— 8 '(1) dispute resolved ..' 9 Although is true specifically articulate credibility findings, can scarcely doubted contentions him. 10 Respondent's killed blast sawed-off shotgun device been set shoot through back their front car seat. His indicated because extreme jealousy, rigged go off when pulled seat forward. For some reason failed initially; so seated her car, operated hand. claimed false noticed lump floor behind 11 When reached down investigate, shot her. support theory relentless questioning coercion, presented effect that, time confessions, 13 'he injury, pain; taken garage asked put hand where blood was; threatened beat him up admit her; compelled but meant done inadvertently, placing lump; telling officer wanted see wife, remember happened thereafter until 9:00 o'clock morning.' 14 In addition, as 'Huntley' officers told they talk them; one detectives hands hole wife's not, detective took himself; anything past morgue, giving second statement. He also attempted explain reasons such detailed factually accurate statements. summary tended show although station house about p.m. day murder, even suspect late p.m., only information. morgue request, factor triggered first confession. Further, allowed sit family, given coffee mother-in-law police, admitted treatment good during questioning. There offered food, admitted, hungry. Again acknowledged treated 'nice.' It 'on evidence' finding 16 stated could tell whether courts 'credited Rose's story circumstances surrounding still these voluntary, we agree based holding partial complete rejection testimony, event bound deny petition.' 1288, 1290. Townsend Sain, 372 293, 314—315, 315, 83 745, 757—758, (1963), precursor forth general standards governing hearings petitions, stating: 17 '(T)he possibility legal error may eliminated many situations fact finder articulated constitutional applied. Furthermore, coequal responsibilities judges administration law are think may, ordinary case articulation, properly assume trier applied correct facts, absence an incorrect standard Thus, third-degree methods obtaining alleged refused exclude facts petitioner, being, course, theird-degree necessarily produce coerced confession.' Here, utilized wrong standard, every indication standards. 'totality circumstances' and, pre-Escobedo Illinois, 478, 1758, 977 pre-Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 694 (1966), situation, considered warned rights assistance self-incrimination confessing. And quite statement along 'were petitioner's (Delle Rose's) portrayed them.' See, e.g., Spano York, 360 79 1202, 1265 (1959); Watts Indiana, 338 49, 69 1347, L.Ed. 1801 (1949). Under reasonably granted relief believed allegations. See supara, U.S., S.Ct., 758. 18 We, therefore, met requirements U.S.C 2254 (d)(1), below incorrectly determined not. thus motion leave proceed forma pauperis petition granted. judgment reversed, cause remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 19 Reversed remanded. 20 Mr. Justice MARSHALL, whom DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART concur, dissenting. 21 am disagreement per curiam herein, oral argument light majority's firmly views. 22 cannot accept improperly concluded adequately thereby relieving obligation 'by erroneous,' 2254(d). does judge, record question voluntariness, utterly basis 'considering Despite any reasoned explanation action, now assures us 'it him.' Ante, 692. disagree more, must respectfully dissent. 23 Foremost, certainty action rests upon clear 'applied' evaluating Without question, ritualistically recited governs respect 1963 confessions. Clewis Texas, 386 707, 708, 87 1338, 1339, 423 (1967). But recitation itself provided guarantee erroneously case, perhaps accepting version confession, rather than rejecting incredible. able Judge noted '(t)his 'reasonably certain' possibly coercive stressful impact disputed testimony' introduced 567, 570. 24 Court, however, places heavy reliance our prior 758, source test 2254(d)(1), 'the confession.'1 hardly limit inquiry—contemplated 2254(d)— into issues claim. 25 '(E)ven proper sometimes required presents situation 'so-called significance (are) blended severed consideration.' Unless allegations, sure denying disbelieved If combination prove violation issue those difficult novel problem decision, hypothesis determinations involves purest speculation. showed deprivation yet (erroneously) should denied. impossible reconstruct held.' supra, 315—316, 758 (emphasis added). 26 precise encountered conclusion—a effectively ignores—is just sort 'difficult' mixed recognized make speculation concerning unreasoned wholly inappropriate. To sure, where, instance, alleges simply extracted means physical beating administered obvious defendant's believed, holds without articulating reasons, safely uncomplicated resulted argued allegations type straightforward 'third-degree confession' suggested entail little misapplication might, reasonable confidence, unexplained interrogation, error. following reveals here confronted, allegation single incident which, clearly involuntariness, series actions particularly susceptible suspect. interrogated, apparently rest, sometime early next morning. Throughout time, purportedly suffering pain due serious ailment undoubtedly handicapped lack facility English language. Meanwhile, warnings rights, questioned repeatedly officers, allegedly included threats confess. During process, reenact being forced torn wet blood. Then take described 'macabre' visit dead body. obtained Subsequently, assistant produced a.m. defense psychiatrist was, exhausted long ordeal yes you moon green cheese.' possible, rejected incredible hand, contentions, remains, third others. last makes substantial uncertainty complex correctly abstract instead, commit Due unrevealing nature credited sufficient portion establish, under controlling involuntariness nevertheless erroneous close accepted. inherent justified case. conclude otherwise, believe, ignores full import reasoning limited merely 29 Consequently, my view, proof 2254(d).2 As merits, aside sustained 'clearly erroneous' Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 52(a). Cf. Neil Biggers, 409 188, 201, 375, 383, 34 401 (1972) (opinion Brennan, J.). * released retried 60 days use Insofar relies language fromTownsend interpreting discretionary character lodged who faced adequacy findings. indicates assume' constitutionally permissible conclusion. (Emphasis added.) Today, often cases Such rigid seems me improper unworkable essentially dependent each particular These matters left largely discretion judge. here, certainly, said abused. erred de novo evidentiary distinct validity established Section says nothing hearing—as opposed acting record—in prisoner's corpus. So understand, appropriate continues controlled exclusively Sain enactment Developments Law—Federal Habeas Corpus, Harv.L.Rev. 1038, 1141 (1970). And, explicitly recognizes apart six specific instances mandating '(i)n material dispute, power, constrained sound discretion, receive bearing applicant's claim.' 318, 760.

Category: 0