Document: 393 U.S. 253 89 S.Ct. 436 21 L.Ed.2d 415 Gale H. JOHNSON, Petitioner,v.John E. BENNETT, Warden. No. 32. Argued Nov. 13 and 14, 1968. Decided Dec. 16, Ronald L. Carlson, Iowa City, Iowa, for petitioner. William A. Claerhout, Des Moines, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 In 1934, petitioner was indicted murdering a policeman in Burlington, Iowa. Petitioner claimed that he innocent had not been present at the scene of crime. At trial, several witnesses testified 165 miles away from on day crime committed. The trial judge instructed jury to be entitled an acquittal ground crime, must have shown by preponderance evidence present.1 found guilty second-degree murder, sentenced life imprisonment. His conviction affirmed Supreme Court. State v. Johnson, 221 8, 264 N.W. 596, 267 91 (1936).2 2 this habeas corpus proceeding, argued, among other points, denied him due process law placing burden proving alibi defense. United States District Court Southern rejected argument petition. Appeals Eighth Circuit affirmed. 386 F.2d 677 (1967). We granted certiorari consider constitutionality instruction, along with issues. 390 1002, 88 1247, 20 102 (1968).3 After we Circuit, sitting en banc, held another case rule shifting defendant defense violates Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Stump Bennett, 398 111 (1968).4 view holding, vacate decision remand court reconsideration.5 3 Mr. Justice BLACK dissents. instruction as follows: 'The is upon prove (the) (of alibi) evidence, is, greater weight or superior evidence. considered established show very time commission accused place so far away, under such circumstances could ordinary exertion reached where committed same. If has shown, would acquittal. But if proof failed show, you will it proved. jury, whole including alibi, there reasonable doubt defendant's guilt, should acquit him.' See also 21, (1936), which corrected certain errors made its original opinion. issues were whether supp essed favorable intentionally used false petitioner's violation 4 similar one case. State's contention any error harmless because 'the whole' beyond doubt. pointed out that, instruction's inconsistency, minds infer retained nonpresence. 116, 121—122. 5 Stump, said: '(W)e are directly faced retroactivity. recognize panel Johnson proceeding state prisoner, refused relief number matters, instruction. concededly some factual distinctions one. Also significant fact case, unlike counsel carefully preserved objections throughout appellate procedures his unconstitutionality instruction.' (Citations omitted.) 122—123. express no opinion validity suggested Appeals. Instead, deem appropriate definite ruling issue.

Category: 0