Court Opinion

ID: 9454019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:32:44.279999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:55.761875
License: Public Domain

*862FREEDMAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The district court held extensive hearings on this problem which it described as a “perplexing one”.1 It held that a heavy burden of proof that the confession was coerced rested on relator,2 and that he had not sustained it.3 The district court then assumed arguendo that the confession was involuntary and on this assumption applied its view that the burden of proof that the guilty plea was substantially affected by the coerced confession lay on the relator.4 It concluded that the plea was voluntary.
The majority here, without discussion of the burden of proof on the voluntariness of the confession, apparently finds that the confession was coerced.5 The majority then goes on to say that in the present case, where no transcript or other record exists which would reveal the circumstances surrounding the plea, the burden of proving that the plea was voluntary rests on the prosecution. After reviewing the facts, the majority finds that the prosecution has established the voluntariness of the plea.
I agree that the confession was coerced and that the burden of proving that the guilty plea was voluntary rests on the prosecution. But it seems to me that before we undertake to judge the facts ourselves, we should afford the district court an opportunity to re-evaluate them in the light of the correct standard.
I therefore would reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the cause for further proceedings there.

. United States ex rel. McCloud v. Rundle, 272 F.Supp. 977, 980 (E.D.Pa.1967).

. Ibid, at 980.

. Ibid, at 981.

. “To be entitled to a writ relator must establish that the coerced confession played a substantial role in motivating or inducing the subsequent plea of guilty.” Ibid, at 981.

. “The undisputed fact alone that appellant was held incommunicado by the police from February 10 until February 18, shortly after the time of his confession, bears sharply upon the voluntariness of a statement secured from him after such lengthy custody. [Citations omitted.] Little is to be gained, however, by questioning the soundness of the District Court’s conclusion that appellant failed to sustain his burden of proving that his confession was involuntary for, as did the District Court, we may assume for the purposes of argument that the confession was indeed coerced. [Citations omitted. Sad the confession been admitted at a trial over appellants objection, there is little doubt that a conviction resulting therefrom would have been set aside.” [Italics supplied.]