Court Opinion

ID: 9449438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:12:11.313929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:50.170719
License: Public Domain

FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge
(concurring and dissenting).
Perhaps, in order to avoid a later claim of coercion and consequent denial of due process, a judge would be wiser to abstain from any conversation about a guilty plea with a criminal defendant awaiting trial before him — even when, as here, the judge is acting in what he soundly considers the defendant’s best interest and in line with the recommendations of experienced defense counsel, and the result of abstention is likely to be a heavier sentence for the defendant whose rights the due process clause aims to protect. However, no one contends that such a conversation by a judge is a per se denial of due process; decision turns on what was said and its probable effect. A reviewing court must not impose on a hard-pressed nisi prius judge, speaking extemporaneously to a criminal defendant, a standard of precise and balanced expression not always realized even in opinions which appellate judges have had ample opportunity to revise. We must look not to isolated phrases but to the general tenor. As Judge Weinfeld said in United States v. Tateo, 214 F.Supp. 560, 565 (S.D.N.Y.1963), cited by my brother MARSHALL, the issue is the state of the defendant’s mind and that “is to be decided by the trier of the fact, whether court or jury, just as any other fact issue — the reasonable inferences to be drawn from all the surrounding facts and circumstances.” Where, as here, this issue of fact has been tried to a district judge, his findings — in the absence of any indication that he applied erroneous substantive or procedural standards — are entitled to the benefit of the “unless clearly erroneous rule” of F.R.Civ.Proc. 52(a). United States ex rel. Crump v. Sain, 295 F.2d 699 (7 Cir., 1961), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 830, 82 S.Ct. 845, 7 L.Ed.2d 794 (1962), and cases cited. It is true that insofar as this rule rests on the trier’s observation of the witnesses and findings of credibility consequent upon that, its force is diminished where there was no hearing and both trial and appellate courts proceed on written records. But the rule may not be wholly disregarded in such a case; it “applies also to factual inferences from undisputed basic facts.” C. I. R. v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 291, 80 S.Ct. 1190, 1200, 4 L.Ed.2d 949 (1960).
*316The conference in Judge Groat’s chambers was devoted to the objective, admittedly beneficent, of exploring whether McGrath’s interests would be better served by standing trial on an indictment for first degree robbery or pleading guilty to second degree robbery. There was surely no impropriety in his being advised of the different ranges of minimum and maximum sentence for the two crimes, of which, indeed, he seems already to have been made well aware by his trial counsel. Where the state judge is claimed to have strayed beyond permissible bounds was in saying, at various times, that if McGrath were convicted of first degree robbery, “I might have to send you away for the rest of your life,” “you will be entitled to no consideration of any kind from me,” you are going to be away “until you are an old man” or “for a long time,” and “there can be no consideration.” No doubt it would have been well if Judge Groat had inserted more of the qualifications that we judges love — even though the qualified statement might in fact have been less accurate than the unqualified one. But in determining whether the district judge erred in finding that these statements had not overawed McGrath, we must consider the background and the context. The background was a first degree robbery that had missed being a felony murder only by the good fortune of the victim’s surviving a violent attack.1 2*****If McGrath, a multiple offender, were convicted by a jury of that crime, why should he have been entitled to “consideration,” and why would a sentencing judge not feel required to approach the maximum? The context is the judge’s-repeated emphasis that the decision as to a plea was for McGrath to make, in the light of what he knew of his own conduct, and of the People’s evidence against him. As conceded in McGrath’s own affidavit,, he had told his counsel, even before entering the court room, that he was willing to-plead guilty to second degree robbery if counsel could get a written commitment, as to the sentence; the issue remaining-for discussion in chambers was whether he would do this without one. DoubtlessMcGrath hoped that by pleading guilty to-second degree robbery he would receive a sentence less than the maximum, but he- and his counsel knew full well that their only assurance was that he was avoiding a mandatory minimum sentence of 15' years and a permissible maximum of 60.. At the sentencing, two and a half months. later, the judge stated with obvious sincerity, that when McGrath was first before him, he “was still not familiar with all the details,” and that when he ascertained the full extent of McGrath’s vicious record, summarized in footnote 1 to my brother KAUFMAN’S opinion, and learned more about the crime itself, his-conscience would not permit him to go materially below the statutory maximum for the lesser offense to which, to his. expressed regret, he had allowed Mc-Grath to plead.2 For us to turn a man *317with McGrath’s record loose on society under these circumstances, after he has served only a little more than the minimum mandatory sentence for the lesser offense — unless the People were now able to prove the commission of the brutal robbery as they were prepared to do ten years ago — would be, in my view and with all deference to my brother Marshall, an abuse of federal habeas corpus and the great principles that it serves.
As I read my brother KAUFMAN’S opinion, he and I would agree that if it was proper for Judge Brennan not to go beyond the transcript of the proceedings before the state judge, the denial of McGrath’s petition should be affirmed. But I disagree with his holding that an evidentiary hearing was required in this case, where we have the good fortune to possess a transcript fair on its face and certified “to be an accurate transcript of this proceeding” by the Official Court Reporter. McGrath’s applications, both in state coram nobis and federal habeas corpus, admit that the stenographer was present at the conference in Judge Groat’s chambers. What is now characterized as a challenge by McGrath to the authenticity of the transcript is a statement, made initially in his state coram, nobis affidavit seven years after the event, and repeated in his habeas corpus application, that the judge said the conference was “strictly off the record,” whereas the transcript reports the judge as beginning the conference in chambers only by saying “Let the record show there is no jury here. It is in chambers.” The alleged corroboration of this “challenge” by McGrath’s trial attorney consists of a seven-line affidavit, in the form generally used to verify New York pleadings, “That he has read the affidavit of John McGrath and that to your deponent’s knowledge the attached affidavit is true except as to those allegations mentioned upon information and belief and to those he believes them to be true”; asMcGrath’s habeas corpus affidavit tells-us, he himself had prepared this form and sent it to the lawyer who had agreed in advance to sign it. Since McGrath’seoram nobis affidavit had in fact not challenged the authenticity of the transcript, of whose existence he apparently was not aware until the People filed it in response to his petition, the attorney’s. jurat likewise did not. Moreover, Mc-Grath’s own version of what occurred in Judge Groat’s chambers in 1953 reinforces rather than rebuts the presumption of regularity to which the transcript, is entitled. Apart from naturally being more abbreviated, it differs chiefly in making the judge’s remarks somewhat more colorful in two instances and in including a supposedly tell-tale shake of the judge’s head “when my Attorney mention 15 to 30 years.” Assuming in. McGrath’s favor that this assertion as-to the shaking of the judge’s head in 1953 should go unchallenged at a hearing-ten years later, I cannot imagine that any trier of the facts would give it the slightest effect when the transcript records no such episode as is alleged to have occasioned the shake.3 “Where- * * * testimony is in conflict with contemporaneous documents we can give it little weight * * United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 396, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948) .
Recent decisions of the Supreme Court have expanded the substantive grounds on which state prisoners may seek federal habeas corpus, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), overruling Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949) ; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. *318335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), overruling Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 62 S.Ct. 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1252 (1942); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487, 83 S.Ct. 774, 9 L.Ed.2d 899 (1963); Ker v. California, 373 U.S. -, 83 S.Ct. 1623 (1963). Other decisions have eliminated conditions requiring previous compliance with state appellate procedures very largely, and prior application to the Supreme Court for certiorari entirely, Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963), overruling Daniels v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 482-487, 73 S.Ct. 437, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953) implicitly and Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761 (1950) explicitly. The writer’s opinion in United States ex rel. LaNear v. La Vallee, 306 F.2d 417 (2 Cir., 1962), cleared the way for a prisoner, sentenced under New York’s multiple offender law, to challenge the constitutional validity of a prior out-state conviction, used by New York as a basis for increased sentence, without taking proceedings in the sister state. These decisions render it inevitable that the federal courts in districts where state prisons are located will be inundated by habeas corpus applications. Since the decisions were not stated to have only prospective effect, the tide will rise to flood proportions during the next few years when many hundreds of prisoners, convicted over scores of years, whose way to federal habeas corpus had seemed barred on substantive or procedural grounds, or even had been held to be, will be simultaneously pressing for relief. Until the pressure is eased, on a short term basis, by Congressional provision for more judges and supporting personnel in these districts or otherwise, and, ultimately, by the raising of state standards of criminal procedure to the level of due process set by the Supreme Court, the handling ■of this wave of litigation in such a way that the' sheer mass of habeas corpus applications will not prevent the effective disposition of the meritorious ones, see Mr. Justice Jackson concurring in Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 537, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953); Mr. Justice Clark dissenting in Fay v. Noia, supra, 372 U.S. at 445-446, 83 S.Ct. at 852-853, 9 L.Ed.2d 837, and impair the rights of other federal suitors, constitutes a new and major problem in the administration of federal justice.
The problem must largely be handled, as the Supreme Court has said, “on the front line, by the district judges who are conscious of their paramount responsibility in this area”, Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 319, 83 S.Ct. 745, 760, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), — in New York, more particularly, by the judges for the Northern and Western Districts on whom, because of the location of the state prisons, a disproportionate share of the burden falls. The courts of appeals should not make the already hard task of these judges harder by a perfectionist attitude that would require evidentiary hearings in cases where no substantial reason has been advanced for holding one. Not only would “the too promiscuous grant of evidentiary hearings * * * swamp the dockets of the District Courts and cause acute and unnecessary friction with state organs of criminal justice,” Townsend v. Sain, supra, 372 U.S. at 319, 83 S.Ct. at 760, 9 L.Ed.2d 770, it would also defeat the high purposes of the Supreme Court by relegating the occasional worthy applicant to a remote position in the queue. There is a limit to what federal district judges can do; to the extent that their time is taken up by useless hearings on applications by state prisoners, useful ones and other pressing business of the court will have to wait. Here as in other matters, the best can become the enemy of the good. McGrath has made no sufficient showing to require that one of the two judges of the Northern District of New York spend a day or two of his busy life in taking the testimony of the state judge, the prosecutor, McGrath’s trial counsel, and the court stenographer, to determine that what the Official Court Reporter certified to be “an accurate transcript” of the proceeding in the judge’s chambers was what it *319purports to be. I see no unusual circumstances in McGrath’s ease to warrant sui generis treatment in his favor.
I would therefore affirm Judge Brennan’s denial of the writ. However, since my views on the ultimate merits are closer to Judge KAUFMAN’s than to Judge MARSHALL’S, I join with the former in reversing for a hearing, simply in order that some disposition can be made.

. In the transcript of the proceedings on sentence, the accuracy of which is unchallenged, Judge Groat said, without contradiction, that McGrath was “very lucky that he is not here charged with murder in the first degree” and that the victim was “almost killed.”

. The following excerpt from the transcript merits quotation:
“The Court: No sentence, with probably the exception of one, has caused this Court more concern — concern because of the youth of the defendant and concern for what my duty is to society, to the People of this County. When this was originally up for trial, you will remember that I spoke to you and we both spoke to this defendant. If there ever was a first degree robbery case, this is it. You will agree with me on that.
“Mr. George: I have no doubts as to that, Judge.
“The Court: There was no question whatsoever that the defendant would be-convicted. I was still not familiar with all the details; and I say to you quite honestly now that had I known all the details and the fact that this boy is very lucky that he is not here charged with murder in the first degree, I doubt whether I would have taken the plea I did. But be that as it may, through your efforts, Mr. George — ■
“Mr. George: Thank you, your Honor.
“The Court: — and through the Court’s soft-headedness or soft-heartedness — I *317don’t know which — a plea of robbery in the second degree was accepted from the defendant, knowing what I would face had it been the first degree. I have exhausted my conscience. I have talked to people. I have searched the record and I have examined the conviction record of this boy.”

. The closest approach is the judge’s remark, “I make you no promises as to your sentence, but I will give you every consideration if you are truthful and there is an indication that you want to start a new life for yourself.”