Court Opinion

ID: 9450502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:50:40.834693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:21.635748
License: Public Domain

McRAE, District Judge
(specially concurring) :
I concur in the result and generally with the reasoning of Judge Bell’s learned opinion. I feel impelled, however, to enter a special concurrence on one point. One of the most troublesome questions in *369the fluid area of federal criminal law at the present time is: To what extent does the expanded constitutional protection given state prisoners under Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 (1961), Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963), and related cases affect the rights of federal prisoners collaterally to attack their convictions in a Section 2255 proceeding? In my opinion, this is not a “threshold question” to be answered by the trial court in each case. This is a question of law which urgently needs the attention of the appellate court, and once such court gives its interpretation, the question ceases to be open for the trial court’s consideration.
Perhaps Judge Bell is correct in his view that the question of “whether the errors alleged here are of the sort properly cognizable in a § 2255 proceeding” is not squarely presented in this case, but it is my view that logically we should first answer the question of whether the petitioner has any rights before we decide whether such rights have been waived.
In my opinion, Judge Bell has correctly expressed the standard which would apply in these cases when he states:
“However, we see no persuasive reason why collateral attack should be more liberal for the state prisoner than for the federal prisoner. On the contrary, considerations of federalism and the policy against incursion by the federal courts on the sanctity of the judgments of another judicial system are not present in the instant case. Consequently, we hold that Fay v. Noia and Johnson v. Zerbst furnish the controlling standard in waiver situations for federal prisoners seeking post conviction relief under § 2255”.
Having this view of the case, I would strike footnote (1) and thus answer the more pressing constitutional question.