Court Opinion

ID: 9448861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:46:54.149343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:34.880695
License: Public Domain

GEWIN, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring) .
Under the federal decisions relating to habeas corpus, applying the “clearly er*679roneous” rule applicable to findings of fact by the trial court, assuming that the district court intended to refer to coram nobis proceedings in the footnote mentioned and referred to on page 676 of the opinion by Judge RIVES, and it appearing that Argo has exhausted the remedies available to him in the state courts, I concur in the results reached in the well-reasoned and logical opinion written by Judge RIVES.
I fully agree with the Attorney General and with Judge RIVES “ * * * that an understanding of the remedies available in Alabama to test the validity of judgments of conviction of State prisoners is a matter of much importance * * * ”. I likewise agree with the statement in the opinion that “There is no constitutional inhibition to a state’s providing for review of a judgment of conviction by coram nobis instead of habeas corpus.” In my view, the statement of Judge Rives in the unreported case of Phifer and Shuttlesworth v. Moore, decided February 12, 1962, and referred to by him on page 677 of his opinion, is a correct statement of the law. He underestimates the splendid conclusion there reached by now stating:
“After further study, it appears that the writer may have made too broad a statement in saying that state habeas corpus and eoram nobis furnish 'remedies under the laws of the State of Alabama as adequate as habeas corpus in the federal district court.’ ”
Rather, I thoroughly approve of his former conclusion. As to Alabama procedure, it cannot be said, “ * * * that there is either an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner”. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254.
Comity and a delicate balance of inter-jurisdictional relationships between federal and state courts are factors quite as important as the review of state convictions by a federal district judge whose findings of fact import verity when witnesses have testified. A review of such findings in this court is extremely.limited. Federal courts must know that stafe courts are just as much concerned with the preservation of federal Constitutional rights as are the federal courts. Convictions of state prisoners which have been reviewed by the entire hierarchy of state courts from top to bottom, should not be subject to constant federal judicial review except in case of extreme urgency or unusual circumstances.
We have no quarrel.with the philosophy that makes sure that innocent men are not punished, that meritorious claims are not slighted, and that miscarriages of justice should be corrected at all costs. It is doubtful however, that federal judges with federal procedure serve these principles any better than state judges with state procedure. The federal courts are filled with frivolous and repeated petitions seeking release from confinement on strange and unusual grounds. Often such petitions are based upon assertions of alleged facts, which have originated in the fertile minds of cunning criminals. There are numerous examples where federal courts, no doubt prompted by the highest motives, have released dangerous state prisoners who could not be re-tried for heinous crimes because of the lapse of time or the absence of witnesses. Of interest is an article entitled “Federal Habeas Corpus Review of State Court Convictions” by Honorable Charles S. Desmond, Chief Judge, New York Court of Appeals, 50 Georgetown Law Journal 755 (1962). Judge Desmond commences his article with the following quotation attributed to Justice Robert H. Jackson:
“ * * * call it res judicata or what one will, courts ought not to be obliged to allow a convict to litigate again and again exactly the same question on the same evidence. * * * The writ has no enemy so deadly as those who sanction the abuse of it, whatever their intent.”
Nothing herein stated is intended to be critical of the opinion written by Judge RIVES, whose opinions generally, as well as the one he has written in this *680case, demonstrate refined logic, a full grasp of the law and the facts, and unusual sincerity of purpose. He has rendered a service to the State of Alabama in reviewing the subject under consideration. Under modern jurisprudence, his judgment as to what will be required of the State of Alabama in the nature of State remedies or State corrective process, is far superior to mine.