Court Opinion

ID: 9464820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:43:45.634527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:50.301876
License: Public Domain

PELL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I am not unmindful that in the case of a state prisoner petitioning for a grant of a writ of habeas corpus in the federal court system, a federal court may very well grant some form of habeas relief, notwithstanding that:
(a) the petitioner was convicted following an essentially fair trial;
(b) the judgment of conviction was reviewed by the highest court of the state and was affirmed;
(c) post-conviction remedies were pursued in the state court system without success;
(d) the petitioner was represented by counsel during the trial in the state court;
(e) the events leading to the trial and the trial itself occurred nearly two decades pri- or to the filing of the petitions;
(f) the crime of which the petitioner was convicted was an egregious one;
(g) the petitioner is clearly guilty of the crime of which he is convicted; and
(h) witnesses who testified at the trial may be deceased or otherwise unavailable or, in any event, be unable to resurrect long dormant knowledge of the events as to which they testified.
Nevertheless, irrespective of any aspects of comity, the deprivation of a constitutional right in the state court proceedings can be determined to be sufficient to require the granting of the Great Writ, and I do not quarrel with this fundamental principle. On the other hand, I do not believe that when a substantial number of the above factors are coexistent the federal court should be other than cautious in granting habeas relief, which, particularly in the situation of the long lapse of time, may effectively frustrate further state criminal procedures.
I regard the present case as one in which habeas should not have been granted. It' appears obvious to me that, notwithstanding a request directed to the Public Defender for an interview and later a request to that office for assistance in securing a transcript, the petitioners well within the time for appeal were knowledgeable with regard to their rights as reflected by their citing a recent Supreme Court case. They nevertheless refrained from taking steps to institute a timely appeal. Further, the long period of time that followed without any *747activity was such that the stenographic notes essential to the trial record were destroyed. Activity of any sort on the part of these petitioners during the ten years after their conviction by way of seeking to secure the transcript as to the initial trial would have obviated the result now reached by the majority because the transcript itself would have been a first line basis for determining whether there had been a denial of constitutional rights.
The majority opinion in the present case while refraining from the district court’s outright grant of habeas has given the state the alternative of releasing the petitioners or retrying them with all of the attendant difficulties for a successful prosecution at this late date. It appears to me that in any event the relief that should have been granted here should be no more than that an evidentiary hearing in the district court should be held. It further seems to me, however, there is sufficient doubt in the pleadings to have required the district court to hold a hearing on the issue of waiver. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 439, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963); Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). The failure to pursue an appeal through proper procedures for an inexcusable length of time, the failure to take advantage of the services of two different attorneys, the prejudice resulting to the state from the delay, the state’s interest in the finality of its criminal judgments, the determination of waiver by the Supreme Court of Indiana, and the presumption in favor of regularity of state proceedings all militate in favor at the least of a requirement of clarification by a district court evidentiary hearing.
In sum, inquiry into the facts is necessary in my opinion before we intrude into the state procedures here involved. Finally, there are just too many gaps in the situation to be credible for habeas relief at this time. I therefore respectfully dissent.