Court Opinion

ID: 9577866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:38:59.400813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:23.409669
License: Public Domain

Rosellini, J.
(dissenting) — I agree with the majority that this court has jurisdiction to hear a petition for a writ *787of habeas corpus of a prisoner of a state institution, regardless of whether a federal court has also taken jurisdiction of such a petition and, regardless of the fact that an order of the federal court on a petition by the same prisoner might supersede or override any order of this court. However, I do not think that this court should accommodate the federal court in this instance by assuming jurisdiction for the purpose of ordering a superior court hearing which will be followed by a further hearing in this court.
I see nothing in the present posture of the case which makes the petitioner’s position more meritorious than it was when the petition was first before us on demurrer and that demurrer was sustained. What does the petitioner allege? First, that he was beaten up in order to obtain a confession. Second, that his attorney failed to take his suggestion and subpoena a witness who would testify about the beatings, but not that the court refused a request to compel the attendance of the witness. And third, that a coerced confession was introduced in evidence against him. The majority concede that the record shows that no confession was in fact admitted in evidence, but they nevertheless speculate that the petitioner may have refused to take the stand out of fear that it would be used against him. He makes no such allegation.
I do not think that we should dream up allegations for a petitioner who has failed even to appeal from a judgment against him, particularly when the petitioner was represented by counsel.
In short, none of the allegations of the petitioner seems to be sufficient, without bolstering by the court, to amount to an allegation that he was denied a constitutional right. There is nothing to show that he was not convicted on perfectly competent evidence, with all incompetent or prejudicial evidence excluded, and with no hampering of his counsel in the conduct of his defense.
If he was, in fact, beaten by the police, that should be grounds of an action in tort. But unless a confession was extorted and was used to obtain a conviction, insofar as my *788examination of the authorities has disclosed, it would not be grounds for a new trial. His allegations do not show that either of those results occurred, nor do they show that the witnesses who might have testified, had they been subpoenaed, would have contradicted the testimony against him or established a defense to the charge. Their testimony, he says, would have corroborated his story of mistreatment by the police. It is obvious that such corroborating evidence was not necessary since the confession allegedly induced by it was not in evidence.
This court is 10 months behind in hearing and deciding cases due to the physical impossibility of hearing all cases which come before it when they are ready for argument. I do not think it is wise or just that the court should spend its time on a patently frivolous petition for a writ of habeas corpus just because a federal court will give it the dignity of recognition.
If the United States District Court feels, as it appears to, that the petitioner’s allegations are not frivolous, it should hold an evidentiary hearing. It is its duty to do so. See Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 9 L. Ed. 2d 837, 83 Sup. Ct. 822 (1963).
The federal court should not require the state court to relitigate a criminal case. Such relitigation may become a never-ending task. If we retry this case and the petitioner is dissatisfied with the decision of this court, he will then invoke his federal habeas corpus petition. There is no certainty that in reviewing the state decision, the federal court will sustain it. This is so because the federal court’s examination of the record will be by one judge while in the state court it is by a multijudge court. On close and difficult legal questions, a multijudge court may differ but a majority of the judges will determine the issue, while a one-judge court may decide the case according to the judge’s predilection as to what the law should be.
If the Federal District Court decides to “relick the calf” it should do so itself. It has the time, the right, and the funds of the U. S. Treasury for the purpose.
The federal court’s insistence that the state re-examine a thrice-examined felony conviction means that the state *789court must tell its law abiding citizens that their cases cannot be heard as promptly as they might otherwise be because the time allotted to a citizen’s case must be given to a felon who must have his case heard four times.
If a petition does not allege facts sufficient to show a denial of a constitutional right, this court should not issue the writ. I believe the petition before us is fatally defective in this regard and that writ should be denied.