Court Opinion

ID: 9457327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:18:45.642047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:18.372761
License: Public Domain

LUMBARD, Circuit Judge:
I dissent.
The record does not support the claim that objection was made at trial to the admission of the confession on the ground that it was not voluntary. The record does show that no request was made to charge the jury on this subject.
Appellant was represented at trial by an experienced counsel, who had been assigned by the state courts to defend numerous cases of this nature. The reason for counsel’s failure to make specific objection was because there was little or nothing to support any claim that the confession was involuntary.
Burgos was picked up with two of his confederates about 7:15 p. m. on the day following the killing of Harry Heisler on May 29, 1962. After a brief period of questioning, shortly after 8:00 p. m. when Lieutenant Owen asked Burgos “Did you do it?” Burgos responded “Well I did it. I guess I’ll get the chair.” Invited to explain whether it was an accident, Burgos replied “It was no accident. A friend of mine needed money. We followed two men. I popped him on the elevator.” Burgos then gave further details and said to another confederate, Hernandez, who had been brought into the room “tell them where the guns are.” The guns were found within a few minutes, the questioning continued, and a few hours later after the arrival of an Assistant District Attorney the statement of appellant was taken down stenographically. While the detectives who testified to these events were cross-examined, counsel made no attempt to show that Burgos had been ill-treated or coerced in any way.
Contrary to the facts stated above, the petitioner now claims that “he was taken to the police station and questioned for seven and one half hours by relays of *134detectives, he was told that he would be denied food and water until he made a statement, he was refused permission to contact his family, and he was not informed of his right to remain silent or his right to counsel.”
On such a record, Judge Palmieri correctly denied the petition, without a hearing.
In view of the majority’s emphasis on the claims of the petitioner, I think I should point out that they appear to have been drafted in the light of recent court opinions rather than on what was claimed or proven at the time of trial.
I would affirm the order of the district court.