Court Opinion

ID: 9452300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:36:27.486941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:09.607323
License: Public Domain

J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
This appeal from denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 presents two questions. The first, whether counsel at Thornton’s trial was ineffective, is easily disposed of. It is based almost entirely *830on counsel’s failure to make a pre-trial motion to suppress certain evidence. The fact is that counsel for Thornton joined with counsel for other defendants in the case in their motion at the trial to suppress the evidence in question. Counsel’s failure to make his own motion to suppress before trial provides no basis in this case for a claim of ineffective representation.
The second question is whether the District Court was correct in ruling that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is unavailable to determine whether evidence introduced at a trial was unlawfully obtained. The law in this circuit and in most other circuits has long been that the claim is not cognizable. E. g., Warren v. United States, 8 Cir., 311 F.2d 673 (1963); Thomas v. United States, 7 Cir., 308 F.2d 369 (1962); Edwards v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 152, 256 F.2d 707, cert. denied, 358 U.S. 847, 79 S.Ct. 74, 3 L.Ed.2d 82 (1958). Contra, Gaitan v. United States, 10 Cir., 317 F.2d 494 (1963); United States v. Sutton, 4 Cir., 321 F.2d 221 (1963); United States v. Winstead, N.D.Cal., 226 F.Supp. 1010 (1964). Appellant requests a reappraisal of this rule in light of recent Supreme Court decisions defining the appropriate scope of post-conviction relief for state and federal prisoners.
Petitioner raises facts, undisputed at this time, which would, if true, prove a denial of his constitutional rights. That the constitutional rights of a federal court defendant are violated by the introduction at his trial of illegally seized evidence has been clear since Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914). The question here is whether this constitutional claim can be asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The statute allows federal prisoners “claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution * * *" to move the sentencing court “to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” But the statute orders appropriate relief if the court finds “that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack * * (Emphasis added.) The ambiguities caused by the juxtaposition of these two paragraphs have been carefully treated by Judge Friendly, who recognizes it may be futile “.to endeavor to draw much meaning from the rather murky language of § 2255 * * United States v. Sobell, 2 Cir., 314 F.2d 314, 322, cert. denied, 374 U.S. 857, 83 S.Ct. 1906, 10 L.Ed.2d 1077 (1963).
We know, however, that “the sole purpose [of § 2255] was to minimize the difficulties encountered in habeas corpus hearings by affording [federal prisoners] the same rights in another and more convenient forum.” United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 219, 72 S.Ct. 263, 272, 96 L.Ed. 232 (1952). (Emphasis added.) And the Court has recently summarized federal prisoner habeas corpus practice, concluding: “The course of decisions of this Court * * * makes plain that restraints contrary to our fundamental law, the Constitution, may be challenged on federal habeas corpus even though imposed pursuant to the conviction of a federal court of competent jurisdiction.” Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 409, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963). This would seem to mean that habeas corpus relief for state and federal prisoners, as presently interpreted, extends to all constitutional claims, and that § 2255 must be equally broad or raise the serious constitutional questions regarding suspension of the writ, see U.S.Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2, avoided in Hayman. See Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 11-12, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963).
It is arguable, of course, that restraints contrary to the Constitution may mean one thing on direct appeal and another on collateral attack. See Bator, Finality in Criminal Law and Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners, 76 HARV.L. Rev. 441 (1963). But Worn, a habeas corpus case, leaves little room for this approach, and it has generally been assumed since then that, at least with respect to state prisoners, federal collateral relief *831is available for all constitutional deprivations. See, e. g., Dillon v. Peters, 10 Cir., 341 F.2d 337, 339 (1965). It is well settled specifically that state prisoners may raise every variety of search and seizure issue in habeas corpus proceedings. Henry v. State of Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 452, 85 S.Ct. 564, 13 L.Ed.2d 408 (1965); Hubbard v. Tinsley, 10 Cir., 336 F.2d 854 (1964); United States ex rel. West v. LaVallee, 2 Cir., 335 F.2d 230 (1964); Nelson v. Hancock, D.N.H., 239 F.Supp. 857 (1965); United States ex rel. Holloway v. Reincke, D.Conn., 229 F.Supp. 132 (1964). The question of the prospectivity of the exclusionary rule in state court cases, resolved in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965), arose only on the assumption that habeas corpus was available for state prisoners’ Fourth Amendment claims; Linkletter itself was a state prisoner’s federal habeas case.
The argument has been made, most lucidly, and has been accepted by the majority, that the full thrust of Noia is applicable only to state prisoners, and that federal prisoners should be treated differently. There are substantial justifications, it is argued, such as the limitations on direct review in the Supreme Court, to afford state criminal defendants a meaningful federal forum (which was done in Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953)), even where their claims were not properly presented in the state courts (which was established in Fay v. Noia, swpra). Federal prisoners, on the other hand, have a federal forum from the outset and there is no reason to allow relitigation collaterally, “absent a botched presentation by counsel or a claim of new evidence * * and even then the matter involves “considerations other than those which determined Fay v. Noia,” generating from the need for finalty, and from the importance to society that the claim be enforced, the latter being especially lacking in the case of search and seizure. Amsterdam, Search, Seizure, and Section 2255: A Comment, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 378, 379-381, 386, 387-388 (1964).
There is undoubtedly a difference in the way federal courts should treat post-conviction applications by state and federal prisoners. Brown v. Allen, supra, at 508, 73 S.Ct. 397 (opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter), interprets 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as requiring federal courts to have the “last say” with respect to questions of federal law. Federal prisoners applying for collateral relief often have had their constitutional claims passed on by federal courts at trial or on appeal, so the Brown v. Allen rationale for federal court relitigation is inapposite. But this difference provides no basis for limiting the grounds upon which federal prisoners may obtain collateral relief, or for formulating a separate set of rules to determine when a federal prisoner’s claim has adequately been adjudicated. Where a federal trial or appellate court has had a “say” on a federal prisoner’s claim, there may be no need for collateral relitigation. But what if the federal trial or appellate court said nothing because the issue was not raised ? What if it is unclear whether the “say” was on the merits ? What if new law has been made or facts uncovered relating to the constitutional claim since the trial and appeal? What if the trial or appellate court based its rulings on findings of fact made after a hearing not ‘“full and fair” within the meaning of Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963)? All these problems are common to state and federal prisoners, and the interest in finality operates equally in both situations. These problems raise, not the issue whether relitigation is necessary, but whether one adequate litigation has been afforded. It would be anomalous indeed, especially in light of the interest in maintaining good federal-state relations, if defaults not precluding one adequate federal review for the constitutional claims of state prisoners precluded such a review for federal prisoners, or if defects rendering state court adjudications inadequate did not similarly affect federal court adjudications. Even before Townsend, there were strong indications that § 2255 relief was available to chai*832lenge all constitutional errors. See the argument of Mr. Justice Douglas, joined by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Black, in Hodges v. United States, 368 U.S. 139, 141-142, 82 S.Ct. 235, 7 L.Ed.2d 184 (1961), which, while in a dissenting opinion, was not incompatible with the per curiam opinion of the Court. And subsequent to Townsend, this court has held § 2255 available to correct admission of an unconstitutionally coerced confession. Thomas v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 225, 352 F.2d 701 (1965).
Those considerations which the majority believes argue against § 2255 collateral review of Fourth Amendment claims largely apply also to the assumption of like jurisdiction over confessions. In each instance the reviewing court must reconstruct from stale evidence an intricate factual situation and measure it against a quite imprecise constitutional standard; once illegality is shown, evidence which might well have significant probative value must be cast aside, and a settled criminal conviction overthrown. But Thomas, supra, establishes that under § 2255 nothing in this cluster of factors overrides the interest in guaranteeing that federal incarcerations are in harmony with the Constitution.
There may, however, be some basis for treating search and seizure (and possibly other) claims in a special way. The exclusionary rule was applied to the states in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), but in Link-letter v. Walker, supra, the Court refused to apply Mapp retrospectively. This might support the argument “not only that society has no interest in the enforcement of * * * [the rule] collaterally, but that society has the strongest sort of interest against its enforcement.” Amsterdam, op. cit. supra, 112 U.PA.L.REV. at 388. Ultimately, this position represents a subjective view of the relative importance of the Fourth Amendment. For even if the rule’s sole purpose is to deter unlawful police conduct, why does this make it “grudgingly taken, medicament,” and how does this serve to demonstrate when we have “swallowed” what “is needed to combat the disease” ? Id. at 389. I have always felt, with the late Mr. Justice Frankfurter, that the Fourth Amendment has “a place second to none in the Bill of Rights,” and is not just “a kind of nuisance, a serious - impediment in the war against crime.” Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 157, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 1104, 91 L.Ed. 1399 (1947) (dissenting opinion). And the decision to apply Mapp prospectively was not, as I understand it, based upon the Court’s low regard for the importance of enforcing Fourth Amendment rights, but upon the inapplicability of the deterrence rationale of Mapp to pre-Mapp state court cases, and the justifiable reliance placed upon Wolf v. People of State of Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949) (holding the exclusionary rule inapplicable to the states), by state courts and state law enforcement officers. Neither of these reasons is present with respect to federal cases decided since Weeks. When a new rule is created by overruling an existing Supreme Court precedent, the disturbance of finality takes on a new dimension, perhaps justifying special treatment consistent with the purposes of the new rule. See Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U.S. 406, 86 S.Ct. 459, 15 L.Ed.2d 453 (1966). Otherwise, we are left with subjective judgment, since finality is disturbed by enforcement of all constitutional rules, many of which apply regardless of the innocence or guilt of the accused.
Assuming, then, that § 2255 is available to federal prisoners seeking to enforce the Fourth Amendment, what significance should be accorded the fact that a federal court may already have resolved the issue ? I find this question governed by Sanders v. United States, supra. The issue in Sanders was when a federal court can deny a repeat application for § 2255 relief without reaching the merits of the petition. The Court held this may be done only when (1) the ground for relief advanced has been determined adversely to the applicant on a prior ap*833plication and he cannot show the ends of justice would be served by a redetermination, or (2) the Government can show the applicant has abused the remedy. Even in these two situations, however, the § 2255 court has power in its discretion to hear claims on the merits.
These rules enunciated in Sanders to govern the availability of § 2255 on repeat applications should apply equally to a federal prisoner’s first § 2255 application. Sanders involved a claimed involuntary guilty plea. Consequently, there was no trial or appeal where the claim could have been raised. There appears to be no reason in principle to distinguish between the finality effect of determinations of grounds made at trial or on appeal and determinations made on earlier § 2255 applications, or to give less significance to abuse of federal process generally than is given to abuse of the § 2255 remedy. The Sanders criteria, therefore, should be applied to this case.
District courts, under this analysis, may properly dismiss § 2255 applications based upon grounds for relief already determined adversely to the applicant on the merits, unless he can demonstrate that a redetermination would serve the ends of justice. The “ground” asserted here — illegally seized evidence — was determined at appellant’s trial. We can assume the determination was on the merits as it followed a motion to suppress made during the trial. Townsend v. Sain, supra, 372 U.S. at 314, 83 S.Ct. 745. It is not at all clear, however, that appellant could not show the ends of justice, in the sense used in Sanders, would be served by permitting a redetermination. There may be factual disputes which were not resolved after a “full and fair” hearing as defined in Townsend v. Sain, supra, or a change in the law or some other justification for any failure to raise a crucial point or argument. Sanders v. United States, supra, 373 U.S. at 16-17, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148. The burden is on appellant to show the ends of justice would be served by a re-determination, but we must give him an opportunity to meet this burden.
District courts also possess under this analysis a limited discretion in collateral litigation to refuse to hear claims or evidence underlying claims where the Government can show the failure to raise or develop these claims at earlier proceedings amounts to an abuse of federal process. The Court in Sanders refers specifically to the deliberate bypassing test articulated in Noia as the proper standard, and gives as examples cases where prisoners deliberately withhold or abandon grounds. “[Njeedless piecemeal litigation, or * * * collateral proceedings whose only purpose is to vex, harass, or delay” need not be tolerated. 373 U.S. at 18, 83 S.Ct. at 1078. For example, in Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U.S. 239, 44 S.Ct. 524, 68 L.Ed. 999 (1924), a habeas corpus applicant asserted as a ground for release one of two claims he had made in an earlier application, but which he had not attempted to prove at the hearing he was accorded or on appeal from the habeas corpus court’s decision, although the claim was put in issue by the return. The Court upheld denial of relief on his second application on the ground of abuse of the writ. This holding was approved in Sanders, 373 U.S. at 9-10, 83 S.Ct. 1068, and would seem to apply to this case with virtually the same force. Appellant here claimed illegal search and seizure at his trial and the issue was litigated. Assuming he can show the ends of justice require a relitigation, his failure to raise the claim on an appeal which he prosecuted, raising other claims, fulfills the Government’s burden of demonstrating a sufficient likelihood of deliberate bypassing. See Fay v. Noia, supra, 372 U.S. at 431, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837; Henry v. State of Mississippi, supra, 379 U.S. at 451-452, 85 S.Ct. 564, 13 L.Ed.2d 408. In Wong Doo the Court stated: “No reason for not presenting the proof at the outset is offered.” 265 U.S. at 241, 44 S.Ct. at 525. If appellant likewise does not offer and prove some reason for his failure *834to raise the claim on his appeal which negates the presumption in this case that his default resulted from tactics or abuse of process, relief may be denied. A remand here is necessary to afford appellant an opportunity to prove his default was otherwise caused, and to allow the district judge to exercise his discretion to excuse the default.
The proper disposition here, therefore, is to reverse the District Court’s holding that § 2255 is never available to hear allegations of illegal search and seizure, and to remand with directions that the ground must be heard on the merits if appellant demonstrates that a redetermination would serve the ends of justice and that his failure to assert the claim in his direct appeal did not amount to a deliberate bypass of federal remedies. In addition, it should be made clear, as it was in Sanders, supra, 373 U.S. at 18-19, 83 S.Ct. 1068, that the district judge has power in his discretion to reach the merits if appellant can prove the ends of justice would be served by a redetermination, even though appellant may be unable on remand to rebut the evidence of deliberate bypassing present in this case.