Court Opinion

ID: 9444500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:02:42.620876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:53.614729
License: Public Domain

POPE, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
Both the opinion of Judge HEALY and that of Judge BONE adequately disclose the single issue sought to be raised by this appeal. It is my individual view that the record furnished by the appellant here is inadequate to warrant a reversal of the District Court.
The only testimony given in the court below which has been furnished as a part of this record is that of the appellee who had testified as follows:
“Now, Mr. Fraser, you can read and write English ? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. I show you this affidavit and ask you if you signed it? A. I did.
“Q. And is the statement in there about your arrests true as to what you said at the time you filed the petition? A. So far as I could remember.
“Q. Well, you read it before signing? A. I did.
“Q. Now, I show you the form M-400. This is your preliminary application. Now, is that in your own handwriting? A. That’s right.
“Q. In answer to the arrest question on that form you answered that you had never been arrested, but when you signed your petition you stated you had been arrested one time, July 4th, 1939, in Los Angeles, California, drunk, five days. That is what you told the Examiner and swore to there at that time, is that it? A. That is correct.
“Q. Now, is that record correct? A. Well, the record you have there, five arrests, they told me to answer what time but I couldn’t tell when it was. I don’t think it was even that. Instead of putting the word ‘several’ they put that.”
The record does not contain either the affidavit or the form M-400 referred to in this interrogation, and after the witness had given the answer at the end of the foregoing testimony, the subject was dropped.
It is true that the examiner made findings and a report which referred to a sworn arrest affidavit (perhaps the one referred to in the testimony above) and which also referred to a preliminary examination “at which time the petitioner testified under oath, in part to the same effect as he stated in his affidavit.” (Emphasis mine) I assume that the trial judge had an opportunity which has not been afforded this court to read the sworn statements of the petitioner to which the examiner referred. I have no idea how the preliminary examination was phrased, what opportunities for misunderstanding of questions asked there may have been, nor can I tell whether I would agree with the examiner in his conclusion that the petitioner deliberately and knowingly made false statements. Without an opportunity to read the affidavit or to read a transcript of the preliminary examination, I must attach to the trial court’s judgment the usual presumptions of validity and regularity and therefore I concur in the result reached by Judge HEALY.