Court Opinion

ID: 9452286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:35:44.686858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:09.076102
License: Public Domain

ALBERT V. BRYAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I cannot concur in the decision to set aside Ledbetter’s conviction because of the admission at trial of his oral and written acknowledgments of guilt. His counsel, in practice for 32 years and declared by the District Court to be “an experienced criminal lawyer engaged by his family”, advised the State trial court that he had no objection to the oral and signed statements. Furthermore, had he objected, he would have been overruled as the statements were not in fact involuntary.
The first question, then, is whether a Federal court can set aside the conviction as un-Constitutional because it thinks the attorney ought not to have waived objection, although this decision was the dictate of his best judgment. The other question is whether Ledbetter was so circumstanced when he made the statements that the law imputes involuntariness to them, i. e., were they “the product of a will overborne”. Davis v. State of North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737, 86 S.Ct. 1761, 16 L.Ed.2d 895 (June 20, 1966).
Ledbetter was convicted of first degree murder with life imprisonment. The facts of the homicide are fairly summarized in the opinion of the District Court:
“The death resulted from the brutal slugging and robbing of an old man by four 19-year-old youths.”
******
“The four youths [on August 7, 1959] had been drinking together; it is a reasonable inference from all the evidence that they wanted money and decided to rob someone on the street. An old man, walking alone, approached them. According to Ledbetter’s confession, Jerry Dennis, one of the four, said: ‘I’m gonna get this here one.’ Dennis tied a handkerchief around his knuckles and slugged the old man on the jaw, causing him to fall and strike his head, which resulted in his death. Ledbetter tried to pull the man out of the street where he had fallen, while the other two robbed him of money and a ring. They left the victim where he lay, and when the police found him, it was thought at first he had had a stroke.”
I. Although Ledbetter had not told his attorney of the oral admissions made to the police officers, the attorney had his signed statement before trial and learned of the oral statements on the morning of, but prior to, the trial. He was surprised by the latter, for they were more incriminating than the signed confession. They revealed a foreknowledge by Ledbetter of the intended assault. These statements were obtained, said the District Court, with “[n]o threats or promises * * * made to Ledbetter, and no force * * * used”.
*496A seasoned trial lawyer, Ledbetter’s counsel consented to allow all the statements into evidence. Like his attorney, the Maryland Court of Appeals thought the written statement “exculpatory in part”. Ledbetter v. State, 224 Md. 271, 167 A.2d 596, 597 (1961). The move could have been a play for leniency as an exhibition of candor and truthfulness. In any event, it was obviously a tactic the lawyer deemed expedient and wise. As noted by the Supreme Court in Henry v. State of Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 451-452, 85 S.Ct. 564, 569, 13 L.Ed.2d 408, (1965):
“[C]ounsel’s deliberate choice of the strategy would amount to a waiver binding on petitioner * * *. Although trial strategy adopted by counsel without prior consultation with an accused will not, where the circumstances are exceptional, preclude the accused from asserting constitutional claims, * * * we think that the deliberate bypassing by counsel of the contemporaneous-objection rule as a part of trial strategy would have that effect in this case.” (Accent added.)
There is no evidence of “exceptional” circumstances here. Assuming the existence of a basis for an objection, counsel’s deliberate strategy in not protesting the statements constituted a waiver binding on Ledbetter. True, the recent Supreme Court decisions in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (June 13, 1966); Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (June 20, 1966); and Davis v. State of North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737, 86 S.Ct. 1761, 16 L.Ed.2d 895 (June 20, 1966) did not touch upon the issue of waiver at the trial level.1 However, if an accused may consent to interrogation before trial, then most assuredly as a defendant with counsel, pari ratione, he may waive objection at trial to otherwise inadmissible statements. At either stage a waiver results in the reception of his incriminating utterances.
Notwithstanding, the District Court ordered the release or a re-trial of Led-better, concluding that there was no waiver for the following reasons:
“It is true that Ledbetter's trial counsel stated that he had no objection to the admission of any of the oral or written statements, but this was apparently said in the belief, that only the signed statement was to be offered. In any event, the evidence indicates that counsel took that position without consulting Ledbetter. Ordinarily such consultation is not necessary where competent counsel is conducting a difficult trial. Here, however, there was no other evidence in the case connecting Ledbetter with the crime. There is no evidence that Ledbetter knew of the constitutional rights involved. And it appears from the evidence that trial counsel did not give as much attention to the preparation of this point as he would give today, in view of the recent Supreme Court decisions. Under all the circumstances the Court cannot say that Ledbetter’s representation by his trial counsel fell below the standard established by Snead v. Smythe, 4 Cir., 273 F.2d 838 (1959), and later Fourth Circuit cases. On the other hand, this Court cannot say that there was any such waiver of constitutional rights as would meet the tests prescribed by * * * [listed decisions of the Supreme Court]”. (Accent added.)
As the District Judge correctly observed and contrary to the implication of the majority, counsel did not have to obtain his client’s permission to withhold an objection. Would this court prefer Led-better’s judgment to that of his experi*497enced counsel, and would it have been fair to leave the determination to Ledbetter? For counsel to have done so would, indeed, have proved his representation inadequate and ineffective.
The critical finding of the District Court of no waiver is simply a speculalation. In essence, it is what the judge felt trial counsel might have believed or thought or might do today. Although Ledbetter’s attorney is acknowledged as completely competent, it is surmised that he “did not give as much attention to the preparation of this [evidential] point as he would give today, in view of the recent Supreme Court decisions”. The references to “today” and the “recent decisions” bear re-examination in the light of the most recent enunciations, post, declaring the effect on the law of Ledbetter’s trial of decisions announced thereafter. I cannot join my brethren in approving a release or new trial order resting on conjecture of the District Court.
II. Nor is the majority willing to do so. It finds no waiver for quite a different reason: “there was no basis on which a trial attorney could reasonably object to the evidence”. This is precisely correct. It means, of course, that the oral admissions and signed confession at the time they were offered into evidence were in fact voluntary; thus there was no basis for an objection. Of course, in this context there could be no waiver as Ledbetter had no rights which he or his counsel could waive. But, the majority says, by virtue of subsequent decisions, Ledbetter’s admissions have become involuntary and thereby subject to collateral attack. Not only do those decisions cited by the majority fail even to intimate a change in the voluntary-involuntary standard, but even if so read, they are not imbued with automatic retroactivity.
The majority finds such involuntariness here from the holdings in the following cases: Davis v. State of North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737, 86 S.Ct. 1761, 16 L.Ed.2d 895 (1966); Haynes v. State of Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 10 L.Ed.2d 513 (1963); Miller v. Warden, 338 F.2d 201 (4 Cir. 1964). The District Court added Escobedo v. State of Illinois, supra, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964); Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964); Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964); and Culombe v. State of Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 81 S.Ct. 1860, 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961), among others. But none of these decisions mechanically convert into involuntary declarations those which, after close and conscientious scrutiny at trial, have been found to be altogether voluntary. These cases do no more than announce that certain circumstances are “significant” as “factors tending to prove” coercion or other unfair influence. Johnson v. State of New Jersey, supra, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (June 20, 1966). Moreover, save Haynes, their history offers no resemblance to the frame of the present admissions and confession.
Voluntariness in fact has always been, and remains, the standard and the determinative inquiry. Davis v. State of North Carolina, supra, 384 U.S. 737, 86 S.Ct. 1761, 16 L.Ed.2d 895 (June 20, 1966). See Haynes v. State of Washington, supra, 373 U.S. 503, 513-514, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 10 L.Ed.2d 513 (1963). In Davis the Court stated: “The sole issue presented for review is whether the confessions were voluntarily given or were the result of overbearing by police authorities.” The Federal district court, to repeat, found that Ledbetter’s statements were not the issue of threats, promises or force of any sort. Nor, looking at the atmosphere and occasions of his criminations, can they be typed as involuntary by reason of their setting.
Ledbetter was 19 years of age; his education included completion of the eighth grade. He was brought to the police station between the hours of three and five o’clock in the afternoon of August 11, 1959. The sergeant in charge was then taking the written statement of Dennis, an accomplice. Waiting for the sergeant, Ledbetter “was kept for a while in a small room, with Officer Moser *498standing guard at the door”. With the door open, Moser was inside. Ledbetter and the officer talked on many matters before the conversation turned to the fatal assault. In plain sight of him, Moser noted on a pad what Ledbetter was saying — and while he was saying it. These oral statements by Ledbetter indicated his before-the-fact knowledge of the attack.
About 8:25 P.M. Ledbetter was taken to the sergeant’s room. There Dennis’ statement was read to him. It implicated Ledbetter as an active participant in the murder, and Ledbetter acknowledged its general correctness. A separate written statement, executed by him around 10:20 the same evening, did not include the more damaging oral inculpation of preknowledge.
The grounds asserted for invalidating the oral admissions and written confession are these: Ledbetter had been refused use of the telephone to call his aunt and uncle with whom he lived; he was not told of his right to remain silent or that any statement he made might be used against him; and he was not advised of his right to a lawyer. But all of this occurred in Haynes v. State of Washington, supra, 373 U.S. 503, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 10 L.Ed.2d 513, the factually nearest to the instant case of all those cited to overthrow the conviction. The Supreme Court did not there cry down the oral admissions made by Haynes soon after his arrest. It denunciated only his written statement, taken after an overnight detention incommunicado.
As Ledbetter's written confession was not so accusatory as were his oral statements, with the latter clearly admissible it was to his advantage to have the written confession in evidence. Nor was it vulnerable like the Haynes written confession, as only two hours were occupied in taking it. This period included the reading of Dennis’ statement and the questioning, typing, submission and signing of Ledbetter’s. The oral admissions to Officer Moser were made after Led-better had been at the station house only an hour. In all, Ledbetter was in custody not more than six hours for interrogation, during which, the District Court repeatedly stresses, “No threats or promises were made to Ledbetter, and no force was used”. I cannot agree that these circumstances spell coercion in fact or in law.
Of questioning similar in character, or even more pressing than Ledbetter’s, the Court said in Miranda v. State of Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (June 13, 1966), “In these cases we might not find the defendant’s statements to have been involuntary in traditional terms”. The instant case must be measured for voluntariness in “traditional terms” for it was concluded before Miranda and Escobedo. See Johnson v. State of New Jersey, supra, 384, U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (June 20, 1966).
Referring to “the failure to warn accused persons of their rights, or the failure to grant them access to outside assistance” as factors tending to show involuntariness, the Court said in Johnson v. State of New Jersey, supra, “Prior to Escobedo and Miranda, however, we had expressly declined to condemn an entire process of in-custody interrogation solely because of such conduct by the police. See Crooker v. State of California, 357 U.S. 433, 78 S.Ct. 1287, 2 L.Ed.2d 1448 (1958); Cicenia v. Lagay, 357 U.S. 504, 78 S.Ct. 1297, 2 L.Ed.2d 1523 (1958). Law enforcement agencies fairly relied on these prior cases, now no longer binding [since Escobedo and Miranda, see footnote 48 in Miranda], in obtaining incriminating statements during the intervening years preceding Escobedo and Miranda."
With this dilution of the warning and non-access factors, and with Escobedo’s requirement of counsel rendered inapplicable here by Johnson — the very predicates of the decision of the District Court and now of this court — the unduressed statements of Ledbetter should not be declared involuntary to relieve him of condign conviction and sentence.
I am authorized to add that Judge HAYNSWORTH joins in this dissent insofar as it differs from the majority on the merits.

. Nothing to the contrary can be spelled from footnote 69 in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (June 13, 1966). Aside from the purposeful character of the waiver instantly, the observation in the footnote has no relevancy presently, because it was based on Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964) and on Miranda itself, both of which are non-retroactive. Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (June 20, 1966).