Court Opinion

ID: 9465984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:02:12.077437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:28.960053
License: Public Domain

MOORE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I dissent.
In my opinion the majority disregards the holding of the Supreme Court in Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976). As I read the majority opinion, the court holds that Judge Sifton incorrectly confined his scrutiny to the record in the state hearing. However, even if petitioner’s testimony in the district court were credited in substantial part, the facts of the felony murder and the ensuing custody of petitioner justify Judge Sifton’s denial of the habeas corpus writ.
It is likely that the majority was influenced, as they state, by the fact that petitioner was a “young defendant with no criminal experience,” and “no prior convictions” who was “never previously . subjected to custodial interrogation” and who was apparently not “given anything to eat during the four-hour period he was held in custody prior to confessing”. I find nothing in the Constitution itself or in Court interpretations thereof which gives to these factors overriding significance in light of the totality of facts in this case, including the seriousness of the offense. Nor is it claimed that the pangs of hunger were the motivating cause of the so-called confession.
I also take exception to the majority’s substituting its version of the facts for that *1043found by the district court. Petitioner’s attorney testified before Judge Sifton that “he did advise [petitioner] that [petitioner] could offer evidence on his own behalf”. However, the majority states, as a matter of hindsight, “that the attorney did not say that he could do this without the testimony being used against him in the criminal trial on the merits”.
I also do not agree with the majority’s conception of the attorney’s duty or that of the state court judge. The majority opinion states:
“We believe that unless [petitioner] himself was specially and fully advised by counsel or the state judge of his right to testify without adverse consequences and chose not to do so, his failure should not bar a federal hearing”.
But a hearing is exactly what petitioner has had and in extenso. I am unwilling to impute to the majority the possible suggestion that only petitioner’s testimony should be believed and all contrary testimony be disregarded.
Reviewing the proceedings briefly, Judge Sifton issued his first opinion on petitioner’s habeas corpus application on May 26, 1978. Therein he found that “petitioner Walker has raised sufficient questions as to the conduct of the custodial interrogation to warrant a hearing on the circumstances of the petitioner’s confession” (p. 10). Accordingly Judge Sifton appointed two mature and skilled attorneys of the Legal Aid Society “to make certain that this Court is appraised of all the relevant facts concerning the petitioner’s Fifth Amendment claims. . . .” (p. 10).
A second hearing was held on October 12, 1978, at which petitioner testified. On December 28, 1978, a 25-page opinion was filed. Judge Sifton saw and heard petitioner and could appraise his credibility. Judge Sifton found that petitioner’s failure to testify at the state court “Huntley” hearing “was due to his own inexcusable neglect”. Petitioner had a “full, fair, and adequate hearing in the state court proceeding. . . ” (28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)), at which he had counsel to advise him as to the strategy best suited to his interests. Thus, he is not entitled to a new hearing in federal court. Judge Sifton went on to examine the factual record produced in the state court and justifiably concluded that Miranda warnings were given, and scrupulously observed, and that, in particular, petitioner’s right to cut off questioning was at all times “scrupulously honored”. Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 103, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975).
Petitioner has had two hearings; at both he was represented by able counsel. An innocent grocer was murdered in the course of an armed robbery in which petitioner participated. All we know from petitioner about the robbery is that he “was laughing”. A further hearing cannot change the facts; nor should it change Judge Sifton’s obviously sound conclusions.
I would affirm on Judge Sifton’s able analysis of the facts and the law in his opinions.