Brief for the Petitioners — Adams v. Illinois

Supreme Court brief1972

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

, Supreme Court of the United kates

’ . %y . = _ ‘ -

‘

% ° . : & *. BAS 3 ee

‘No. —

_ rm an se

ae =. "Petitioner, ae

THE STATE OF-ILLINOIS, |

7 Respondent

ON WRIT OF CERTIO TO THE SUPREME 7

he COURT OF ILLINOIS oe |

geet sera ga

it hee Caanuzs:B, Eves : , :

EDWARD M..GENSON R. EUGENE PINCHAM

Santo J. VOLPE ‘840 East 87 Steet ee

-134 North LaSalle Street Gicseo, aoe |

Suite 824 ues ea

CE 65543: | ee nes

= 2 a) Counsel for Petitioner hs

: ie. ‘ ety ‘ : 3° »

, ’ 2 : Bon: : f stirs Ss ats :

: om ; ; re ah

~—v

TABLE OF CONTENTS wow

pen 3 he

OPINION BELOW. ccc POC Fee |

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ..-:..... DEA ne

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED « le

STATEMENT ..::.. ene ry ee fae

SUMMARY OF snowman Te a iy ee

- ARGUMENT: — atts

Pi Coleman v. Alabama, 399 US. 1, la comptolaly api’ |

ee on Se a

Me retroactive .......%¢ AP Sh Py Soe

CONCLUSION - S052 SAE APRA CEE ig

Ree “TABLE. OF AUTHORITIES |

Arsenault v. Massachusetts, ee eee oer pee

"- Reten ©, Mendy, BOURGES i cia ec cosaes ese Blogs

| Chimel v. California, 39S U.S: 752 5 abies SNS Erg F

"Coleman v. Alabama, 399 US.1 (1970) ......:. BAGSETE ei

" Daegele v. Karisas, 375 US.1....... 0.056500 Ske pre

Douglas v. California, 372 US. BSS woe e enn y i ete eens. pest 6

Eikanich v. United States, US. 9 Cr. 1.3015. pices joe

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US. 335 ............ ae ec

: Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 ey oe ree BE TO

Geoee ©. Both, 306 UM, BIB nina aan neeneneanetig 2

Hamilton v. Alabama, SORE SF i oe foc. coc. ee ee

_ Johnson, v. New , 384 US. 719 Pace Cad 4 eine Mask

- Linkletter v. Walket\ 381 US, 618 (1965) ......'......555 3,4

Mapp v. Chil, 367 US. 643 «eee (sie aaa,

: Miranda v, Arizona, 384 US. 436 .:.......... Seer Est

FPP: Ronee, SEB 98 3 snd gant 43 Sot Mere 8

ot NS

ee pyrene ‘s eee

ee se ae ‘ 7y , : es ; : . ei € a eS

Pes : : eco TES i.

People. Daniel, 49° pp 24 48 DB PABAT A cs. cec ees i 8 ?

= i i . \n ‘ , :

3 See 2 obese ee ane _8

eA as

a . = ne 4 8 ;

- on€ a . . 7 es

; | Prope ¥. Nea 118 I. App. od NBs: sees » es oes 8 am |

" Pedple.v. Smith,.108 Il. App. 2d 215 - oe Tree y

‘Stovall v. Denno, 388 | US. 293 . se. “. see 8 ie ifs agi . * . *i *ef.8 © 4

7 oa | United States v. Wade, 388 US. 218 . ‘i 7. y *ee vf . “as “ee. ee “al

c a3 | White v.’Maryland, 373 US. 59. ccs evee wee eee e os “re se 6

ee Williams v. United States, —_ US. 29Cr.L.3015....... 4

ee Mi relleneous: b ont. GGG ce “tad, he “aR eee

aie , - Retrogctivity in Criminal Procedure Decisions, 55 lowa L..-

% i Rev. 1309 . se. es > sia: meneeee 8 © 7 se *e eeee Pp . . eeees 6

fe «a + eat = ,

- , ra se : -

os . . ‘ 2 ;

a9 : » 9 ° : P a eg é ! Ai

r aaa ewes > ae Y Somes ,

f - 6

: “ \» : e 4 p ‘S : r

» sa : . - ze ; . SG i ‘

-o : ‘ - r ‘3

6 ial e ‘ ° .

: ot . es a er é oy . . ¢.

z ‘$s ‘ . e : ée : . fan

yeas - b , ot Ue Tos ivr

= . ’ ‘wei < : , °°

“4 ‘ ‘ 2 o - °

. 3 sey ’ s 2 ‘ es

* ~ nd 3 3 ie ¢ s .

Bite - 3 : 5 gor ee : BEA? he ‘

ORs : te

: ae, facial

- : he . Yet Oe 4

a a ‘ ts es : lad

we Beat , ‘ if o ‘ aw S

a , y ! . $ ; . .

Of . “ ° > a

vs : 5 / ‘ an Hy a Feud:

% ie re, : ° ee IF ag Pee +s 4 ihe?

Bes ; A te * ° +) a ¥ : ; - af : % “yh ‘ me

‘ Pe a é : So A = 2 ae ie 7 :

’ : e ~ : =

bee te ay ea

* e ng aS

ces 6: _ THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Bhges

; a ~ « « $1 $

° { f os ut ay j o

r. . v : i 3 ; cop * 35

2 -! “A Fi &

. | ONLWRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPRIME.

eis athe, aie sas poate

rc Patindiaeaat aie teats

the ee of. petitioner for pupil le of narcotics is

aati ea Ns ec "oo Oe ge

; Zs i Beg ox iat chat éY ‘s 7 ft

: '< ee ote roe ys ee, € Ma

te 7 ym baat erie MoS -ady as Bh e ire ae

s . t .

be @ t i? er ae 3

9971, Tae jreicion of i Cont bl wot 26

ea)

eo "QUESTION PRESENTED }

; ine question: .

cS plik Bisa staikaia S00 us:{ (is7, 6 =

: " retroactive and/or applicable to a cause where, prior to trial,

Eathes A ees tO felbere t0 provide! counsel st’

es ene

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

: United States Constitution; Amendment VI:

_ “Tn all criminal prosecutions the accused shail enjoy

“the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for.

his defence.” eS ae

= United Statés Constitution, Amendment XIV, Seetion 1:

Weridt, a ji e Of the Circuit Court of Cook County; on

. No state shall make or enforce any law which

el audi bPbantinigir mentees ot citar :

of the United States;-nor shall any state deprive any

person of life, liberty or property without due -

‘process Of law; nor deny to any person within its

jurisdiction: the ~~ — of the laws.”

> STATEMENT ee

: ad si on January 4, 1967, for the sale

‘narcotics and appeared before the ‘Honorable Kenneth

’ February 10, 1967 Ann. Sea scleral alm

re : 3: :

The “aid Grand | ory eae: RE oe ‘elke:

ment charging Petitioner with the tale of nareotics on Janu

ary 4, 1967. a

‘- Prior to trial Petitioner moved the trial aeage tg ad

able Jacques F. Heilingoether, presiding Judge, to dismiss

"the indictment on the ground. that his Constitutional guar- .

-_ antees under the United States Constitution,

VI arid XIV, had. been denied by the failure to-

ae counsel at the preliminary hearing, as aforesaid. In, support.

-. of said motion, Petitioner set forth in full asin

transcript of the proceedings at the preliminary hearing

Dis tral court denied the moti to dain te tiictmont

~ and the cause proceeded to trial. RSG <

The evidence for the People of the State of Illinois was

’ exceptionally weak. It consisted almost entirely of “the

testimony of the alleged purchaser who was ‘himself a nar-

_ cotic addict, a previously convicted felon, a paid employee |

of the police department, and one who. had perjured him-.

“self before. the semie-Geind dury-iwith-aeipeak-to-kie tees > a

name) which indicted Petitioner. For several extended

periods of time this alleged purchaser was out-of the view — -

of the arresting police officers, at places unkfiown to them. —

No marked money nor narcotics were found in the posses-. -

_. sion of the defendant-petitioner, who took the stand and

denied the gileged $19.00 sale of narcotics. =

3 However, the trial court. chose. to believe the informer

and found the defendant-petitioner guilty and sentenced

-him to the penitentiary eters apkasteonehiggl

“years nor more than thirteen ( a peas:

"SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Not Gh

Under any: ‘relevant -test promulgated since Linkietter. P.

Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965), Coleman ». Alabama 399

U.S. 1 (1970), should be accorded full pplicability and =

er to _ case at bar. a ee ee

ARGUMENT

Linkletter v. . Walker, 381°U.S. 618, was the first decision |

gto deal with the problem: of the retroactivity of another —

_ decision of the Court (Mapp v- Ohio, ‘367 U'S. 643). :

According to Stoval v: Denno, 388 U. S. 293 (holding

‘ -- United States-v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, and Gilbert v. Cali-

fornia, 388 U.S. 265, of prospective application only), -

_““Linkletter established a three-pronged criteria for resolution

_ -Of the question of retroactivity:

“(a) The purpose to be served ‘by the new standards,

“(b) The extent of reliance by law enforcement -

- authorities on the old standards, and

| “(o) The effect on the administration of justice of.

"a retroactive application of the new standards.

- (388 U.S. at 297.) -

As we read Williams v. United States, and Elkanich .v.

- United States, __ U.S. __, 9 Cr. L. 3015 (decided April

- 6.1971, holding nonretroactive Chimel v. California, 395

U. S. init on relevant test of retroactivity_is whether:

. the major. purpose of new constitutional

doctrine is to overcome an aspect of the criminal

trial which substantially impairs its truth-finding

function and so raises serious quesgjons about the

accuracy of guilty verdicts, in past trials... ..”

CUS. __, 9 CreL. 3017.)

If $0, the “new” constitutional doctrine “has been given —

complete. retroactive effect.” 9 Cr. L. 3017. )

Respectfully,:we submit that applying any of the above

tests to the case at bar, Coleman y.’Alabama, 399 U:S. 1,

should be held fully retroactive and applicable to the case

sub mene a | co -

tm» .

A. “THE PURPOSE TO BE SERVED BY

THE NEW STANDARDS” .

We are reluctant to label an accused’s right to’counsel at

the preliminary hearing a “new standard.” As delineated

“.below under B, petitioner takes the position that Coleman

. _ ¥, Alabama, 399 US. 1, decided nothing “new.” :

- But if we are in error on this atsessment, clearly the :

" purpose of the Coleman rule requiring. counsel ‘at the pre-

liminary hearing is to enhance. the integrity, of the fact

finding process. .We can not improve upon the ee a

‘ . Mr. Justice Brennan in Coleman stating the Court’s ns

for holding that, the hirer requires. coypeel 3 at the

preliminary hearing: |

. “Plainly the guiding hand of counsel at the sealed

, nary hearing) is essential to protect the indigent

_ accused against an erronéous or infproper prosecu-

‘tion. First, the lawyer’s skilled examination and

. ¢ross-examination of witnesses may expose fatal

weaknesses in the State’s~case, that’ may lead the

magistrate -to refuse to bind the accused over.

Second, in any event, the skilled interrogation of .

witnesses by an experienced lawyer can fashion a -

vital impeachment tool for use in cross-examination

of the State’s witnesses at the trial, or preserve testi-

mony favorable to the accused of a witness who ,

does riot appear at the trial. Third, trained counsel : |

wate

can more effectively discover the case. the State has

. against his client and make possible the preparation

of a proper defense to meet that case at the trial.

Fourth, counsel can also be influential at the. pre-

liminary hegring in making effective arguments for

the accused on such matters as the necessity for dn .

wrk, abeenatcragrsis ig (90 S. * Ry

) S

in the fats case, wate tact aetioucs ot ena’

guilt was very weak (see Stagement) retroactive application |

is justified because the Coleman vy. Alabama Rule affects

a oe ee andaverts

mn : > Sy

SF =

“the clear ae of. convicting the innocent.’ = _ Gohnson

v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 727-728.) .

Petitioner alsé submits that a second, but by no.means

“2

“the Tight to counsel . . 80 fundgmental

- to our system of justice a désety. associated

with guilt determination that society, and=therefore

"the judicial system cannot.:accept a criminal judg-

» ment as final without the State being put to its full _.

- burden of proof by a trained adversary. See Gideon —

lesser standard places each individual as well as

guilt beyond the most current standard of reason- :

_,able doubt, the validity of the conviction can never

be completely without doubt, making subsequent

- or continued incarceration improper.” Retroactivity —

1309 (1969-1970). nef

ee tener

Alabama (999 US. 1) Rule mandate that the same be

<>iee Cerieer oF Tae: wetaance BY Lan ;

[ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES ON THE OLD

Stanpamse

Once again, we are reluctant to refer to pre-Coleman v. :

Alabama (399 U.S. 1) law as “the old standards.” This is

because -counselless preliminary hearing: took

‘place on February , 1967. ‘As of that Gate, law enforce-.

“ment knew or should have well-known, that the Constitu-

. tion fequired counsel at a trial, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372

US. 335 (held retreattive in Pickelsimer v. Wainwright, 375

. » US. 2); on appeal, Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 | -

"held ‘retroactive in Daegele v. Kansas, 375 US. 1); at an

t where prejudice existed, Hamilton v. Alabama,

8 J.S. 52; as well as ‘at ‘arraignment where no prejudice - ~~

rt Ae SP EA 59 (held retroac- sae

‘we

oo ret tes Ra

tive in srserault v. ‘Massachusetts, 393 US. ‘§ 4966); in

. recidivist proceédings, Greer v. Betto, 384 US. 269. (1966):

and even ina police station, Miranda v.'Arizona, 384 U'S..

— 436 (1966) (held retroactive from the. date of. June 13,

1966; Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. ‘719, 721). :

It is inconceivable that “law enforcement authorities” in i

PSA —— 1967. should recognize’ an accused’s bright .

i gine enpreneaa as relied updp the “old ,

standards” in February, 1967, .it must have been the long

discredited Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, standards.

_ Any supposed “reliance” by law enforcement authorities

_ on some nebulous “old standard” at least since Miranda +. .

se .. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (decided some eight (8). months |

prior to the denial-of counsel in the case.at bar). was volun-

* tary on their part and completely unjustifie dagen

- c. a

OF A. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE NEW. se

STANDARDS”

We come now to the real crux. tas its opinion in the cans

- at bar, the Illinois Supreme Court refused to hold Coleman

v. Alabama, 399 US. 1, retroactive because such would have

a “far reaching and grievous effect on the administration of

_ justice” to the result that “thousands of cases without

: doubt would have tobe reconsidéred in light ofthe new @&

requirement.” (263 N.E.2d at 494.)

That. is simply not the fact. Sey ee 7

It is hotabook law,.and-nb citation \is nocesaéry foe the

: proposition that if afi accused goes to trial and does not —

_' Object to a certain procedure or bit of evidence, he may .

not object for the first time on appeal. There may be, and

are “thousands” of convicted felons-who did not

: -. have‘adp inted counsel atfheir preliminary, hearing. But .

: ee ————

orig Soe ene sommes Sten oF the right-to-counael at the

_ Masterson, 45

Reese .

ese .

: "Rae *

of the right to counsel at that pre-

proceedin, » Sugh is no different-from a failure to

SA A etedeialen ox sridence. ‘The.

Gokae Ge oblast a fe Gel wines the sonssod ba lawyer

preliminary hearing. —

“Our tesearch had “disclosed but six (6) Illinois’ cases,

vr cee a

_ other than the case at bar, where the issue was raised in the —

trial courts: People v. Bonner, 37 Ill. 2d 553; People v.

| EAS ears 199 N.E.2d 33; People v.

108 Ill. App. 24 215, 247 N.E.2d 161; and People

fen

: v. O'Neal, 118 Ill. App. 2d 116, 254 N.E.2d 559; People

». Morms, 30 Ill. 2d 406, 197 N.B.2d 433,. and People v.

Bl. 2d 499, 259 N.B.2d 794. 4

_-All other defendants, by proceeding to trial with «lawyer

Uiiilit uy elias bade’ "ait Qcddoa ‘ta Coleman i. Ale-

: ‘bank er 4, should be hati retroactive to the case at’

bar.

Tia Chives’ dpabiis ‘lake evidlai tha rdposition that.

ve traps, bs bevree

a eee 3

’

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.