Court Opinion

ID: 9465809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:56:24.961844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:23.034380
License: Public Domain

PECK, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. The state prosecution established defendant’s guilt as to the crime charged with evidence whose weight satisfies Fourteenth Amendment due process. There was a positive voice identification of defendant as the assailant, and there was eyewitness testimony that defendant had fought with the victim during a crap game brawl approximately one-half hour prior to his murder. The conflicting eyewitness testimony of Clarence Edwards required the jury to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and the jury chose to resolve the conflict in favor of the government.1 Of course, it *131is hornbook law that resolution of credibility questions lies squarely within the province of the jury.
I have chosen to file a separate opinion in this case because I believe the majority opinion fails to squarely address the standard that governs evidentiary review in ha-beas corpus proceedings. The prevailing standard for such review is the so-called “no evidence” standard, first set forth by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 664 (1960). As noted by the majority opinion herein, the Supreme Court has recently granted a writ of certiorari in' Jackson v. Virginia, 439 U.S. 1001, 99 S.Ct. 609, 58 L.Ed.2d 676, in order to decide if its decision in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), has either overruled or modified the Thompson standard. In my opinion, the majority today has used the Supreme Court’s grant of cer-tiorari in the Jackson case to sidestep the dilemma presently posed by the “no evidence” standard. Such course is inappropriate for two reasons. First, although in the future the Supreme Court may decide to depart from the Thompson standard, at the present time that standard, and that standard alone, controls federal court review of state trial records. Second, even if one chooses to engage in speculation on what the Supreme Court will decide in the future, it is certainly possible that the Court will do no more than simply affirm the Thompson standard in the coming months. In short, this Court, as well as every federal court, is currently obligated to directly confront the “no evidence” standard and to explicitly define its impact on a state prisoner’s right to habeas corpus relief.
At times the federal courts have denied prisoners writs of habeas corpus, espousing a literal interpretation of the “no evidence” standard. These courts have concluded in essence that a state satisfies the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it presents any “iota” or “scintilla” of evidence that tends to establish the prisoner’s guilt. See, e. g., Brooks v. Rose, 520 F.2d 775, 777 (6th Cir. 1975). Such literal interpretation of the Thompson decision so minimizes the scope of habeas corpus review that, in practical terms, it eliminates the very function of such review. In virtually every criminal case that proceeds to trial, the state presents some evidence that renders the guilt of the accused more plausible than not. Furthermore, a literal interpretation of the Thompson decision is no longer consistent with the interpretation given that decision by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases. See, e. g., Vachon v. New Hampshire, 414 U.S. 478, 94 S.Ct. 664, 38 L.Ed.2d 666 (1974); Johnson v. Florida, 391 U.S. 596, 88 S.Ct. 1713, 20 L.Ed.2d 838 (1968) (per curiam).
It is time for the federal courts to forthrightly recognize that habeas corpus review of evidentiary records now comprehends some notion of the degree or the weight of the evidence. Although admittedly the weight required by the Thompson standard is not as great as the weight required, for example, by the “sufficiency of evidence” standard of direct review,2 a federal court should not conclude its consideration whenever it finds “any” evidence of guilt in a state trial record. Rather, a federal court’s obligation requires that it review such trial record in order to insure that the state has presented evidence of adequate weight to satisfy constitutional due process. The Supreme Court has implicitly weighed evidence in cases such as Vachon, supra, and Johnson, supra. The Fourteenth Amendment requires no less.
In summary, I agree with the majority conclusion that the evidence contained in the record now before us meets constitutional requirements either under the Thompson “no evidence” standard or under the “sufficiency of evidence” standard of direct review. I conclude, however, that it is time for this Court to clearly state that each of these standards of review takes into account the weight of the evidence.

. During the hours just prior to the murder, Cleophus Barkley and Clarence Edwards were playing crap with the decedent and a “fourth party.” Eventually this “fourth party” became involved in a fight with Barkley, and the decedent intervened on Barkley’s behalf. At trial, Barkley testified that the “fourth party” at the crap game was defendant. In direct conflict to this testimony, Edwards testified that the “fourth party” at the game was not defendant, but was a friend of Edwards named Jackie whom he had known since 1958. Barkley’s testimony, if believed, established defendant's motive for the murder and his close proximity to the scene of the crime.

. See, e. g., United States v. Green, 548 F.2d 1261 (6th Cir. 1977).