# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — McAden v. Florida > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386416_0186%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1945 - **Citation:** 326 U.S. 723 ## Text . “ ~~ a OF THE: UNITED a ' SUPREME ft » : av ve \ a) hy F > CO ® * > } z ey = 4 ‘a \ ene ~ tae * ~ Sow Va » yes + ‘ \- PEARL McADEN, Ais " : KS é ayy . ~~ * STATE OF FLORIDA’ | ~ | 4 > . ~ im i’ ee ; “A oa : " ey Ae pe a — as a aa ‘ 7 : ‘ INDEX Supsect INDEX Petition for writ of certiorari. ...................... Summary statement of the matter involved..... Jurisdictional statement....................... Question presented and reason relied on for allow- ETI a eg glenn in Wh wat ide Selene ge a Pecan tach vekG 66k 56 Caan aaa Brief in support of petition... .... 1.2... 2... ee eee. So 9 Bk diss. bec bs cae RE ie INDEX TO AUTHORITIES CITED Brown v. State of Mississippi, 297 U. 8. 278; 56 Sup. Ct. ars koa evs hika Ok bon Rk RN he Racin Vat tees Collier v. Baker, Sheriff, Southern Reporter Advance Sheet of March 1, 1945, 20 So. (2d) 653............ Crosby v. State, 90 Fla. 381; 106 So. 741. ......... Siege Edelstein v. United States, 149 Fed. 636.............. Gannon v. Govene, 13 Tim. GOO. «5 5 5c vc ccc cns Glasser v. United States, 315 U. 8. 60; 62 Sup. Ct. 457. . Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. 8S. 458, 58 Sup. Ct. 1019.... Meyers v. State, 112 Neb. 149, 198 N. W. 871........ Nash v. Hoxie, 59 Wis. 384, 18 N. W. 408............ OBrien v. State, 125 Ind. 38; 25 N. E. 187. .......... Powell et al. v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 Sup. Ct. OE 7 cock h iy hey cuebue tia ans kane «s State v. Berberick, 38 Mont. 423, 100 Pac. 209........ Sutton v. Commonwealth, 207 Ky. 597, 269 S. W. 754. . State ex rel. Everglades Cypress v. Smith, Judge, 104 Se A ES oc hudind ina gaand sex waasesats State v. Robertson, 26 S. C. 117, 18. E. 448.. United States v. Aaron Burr, 25 Fed. Cas. 30, No. Ward v. State of Texas, 316 U.S 547, 62 Sup. Ct. 1139. . Page ~~ Santor SE rae ii INDEX STatuTes CITED Page Federal Constitution, Article V..................... 4,8,10 Federal Constitution, Article VI.................... 4,8,10 Federal Constitution, Section XIV.................. 4,8,10 Florida Constitution, Declaration of Rights, Sec. 11.... 2,17 Florida Statutes of 1941, Section 29.01. ............. 25 Florida Statutes of 1941, Section 29.02.............. 25 Florida Statutes of 1941, Section 29.03. ............. 25 Florida Statutes of 1941, Section 27.04.............. 23 Tg he eee ree 36 ,37 1 Wigmore on Evidence, Section 479................ 37 NEE RAEI DRT SON Aa SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1945 No. 128 PEARL McADEN, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI To the Honorable Harlan Fiske Stone, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Associate Justices Thereof: Summary Statement of the Matter Involved Your petitioner, Pearl McAden, respectfully represents that on February 7, 1944, an indictment was returned by the grand jury of the Thirteenth Judicial Cireuit of the State of Florida, in and for Hillsborough County, charging him in one count with first degree murder; that thereafter, towit: on February 11, 1944, petitioner was arraigned and entered his plea of not guilty to said charge and the Judge lh 2 of said court, at that time, set said case for trial for April 5, 1944. On March 22, 1944, petitioner filed motion to require the State Attorney to furnish to him or his counsel a complete list of all witnesses intended to be used by the State at the trial of said cause, and on March 24, 1944, the court entered an order requiring the State Attorney to fur- nish petitioner’s counsel with a complete list of said wit- nesses; on March 25, 1944, the State Attorney served coun- sel for petitioner with a list of State witnesses in obedience to said order, and filed with the Clerk a praecipe for witness subpoenas to be issued for said witnesses; on April 3, 1944, petitioner filed and presented to the trial Judge a motion for subpoena duces tecum, and on the same day the said Judge entered an order denying said motion for subpoena duces tecum. Thereafter the case was called for trial on April 5, 1944, as previously set, and resulted in a verdict of guilty of mur- der in the second degree; thereafter petitioner filed motion for new trial, and included in said grounds was the follow- ing: ‘‘Defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of the State of Florida for the reason that he was denied the right to compulsory process, and, in fact, was denied process of the court, which constituted a denial of a fundamental right guaranteed by the Declaration of Rights’’, and also included the further ground: ‘‘This defendant was denied the right of com- pulsory process as guaranteed by Section 11 of the Bill of Rights of the Florida Constitution, as well as Amendment 6 of the Federal Constitution, which guaranteed to him compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor’’, and also included the further ground: ‘““This defendant was denied in the trial of this cause the equal protection of the law as guaranteed by Amendment 14 of the Federal Consti- tution, as well as denied due process of law as guaranteed by Amendments 5 and 14 of the Federal Constitution’’; and 3 the trial court, on April 22, 1944, entered an order denying said motion for new trial and on said date, adjudged peti- el tioner to be guilty of murder in the second degree and im- ne posed final judgment and sentence of the law upon peti- he tioner by ordering that he be confined in the State’s prison r- of the State of Florida for the remainder of petitioner’s natural life. n- Thereafter petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court ce of Florida, the highest appellate court of said State, to have Ss reviewed said trial, proceedings, sentence and final judg- 4, ment, and in his assignments of error, specifically com- on plained, among other things, of the order of the trial Judge id in denying to him compulsory process, and also denying to na him a fair and impartial trial and due process, and equal protection of the law all as guaranteed by Sections 11 and 12 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution, and ur- Articles 5 and 6 of the Amendments to the Federal Constitu- on tion, as well as Article 14 of the Amendments to the Federal W- Constitution. Thereafter, on January 30, 1945, the Supreme Court of da ¥ Florida rendered its opinion and final judgment, affirming ry the judgment and sentence of the lower court; thereafter ich petitioner duly filed petition for rehearing, which said Su- preme Court did, on March 14, 1945, enter its order deny- her ing that petitioner has exhausted all remedies available ym- to him under the laws of the State of Florida; that there- after petitioner, on the 14th day of March, 1945, filed in the ent Supreme Court of Florida his petition for order staying the um execution and enforcement of said judgment so that he r might make this application to this Honorable Court for a vas writ of certiorari, and the said Supreme Court did, on the March 14, 1945, enter its order granting petitioner’s appli- sti- cation for a stay of the execution and enforcement of said eed judgment for a period of 90 days from said date, so that this and application might be made. 2h EAE : ess? 4 Jurisdictional Statement The final decision and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida was entered on the date hereinabove given and the jurisdiction of this court is invoked under Section 237(b) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of Feb- ruary 13, 1925, Chapter 929; 43 Stat. 937; 28 U.S. C. A. 344. This petitioner asserts and claims that rights, privi- leges and immunities secured and guaranteed to him under the Constitution of the State of Florida, as well as the Con- stitution of the United States, have been and were denied to him through the arbitrary action of the trial Judge in deny- ing to him compulsory process and due process. Question Presented and Reason Relied On for Allowance of Writ The arbitrary denial to petitioner of compulsory process deprived him of the right guaranteed under Section 11 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Florida, which secured to him the right of compulsory process, as well as the right to due process and a fair and impartial trial as guaranteed by Section 12 of said Declaration of Rights of said Constitution, and also deprived petitioner of the rights protected and secured to him by Articles 5 and 6 of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, and Article 14 of the Amendments to said Constitution. The question involves a denial to this petitioner of the process of the court enabling him to protect and defend himself against said charge. The court denied petitioner this process, and this action of the court was a denial to petitioner of a funda- mental right secured to him by the State and Federal Con- stitutions, and denied to hima fair and impartial trial within the provisions, as well as the spirit of said Constitutions, and under this condition, the trial court lost jurisdiction over said cause, as well as the petitioner, and was without 4) power or authority to impose judgment or sentence upon petitioner, and unless this Honorable Court grants writ of certiorari as sought herein, the arbitrary action of the State courts will be made effective and this petitioner will be un- lawfully and illegally deprived of his liberty in a proceeding which disregarded not only his rights secured by the Con- stitutions, State and Federal, but where long established procedural rights have been ignored and disregarded. Prayer Wherefore, your petitioner prays that writ of certiorari issue under the seal of this court, directed to the Supreme Court of Florida, commanding said court to certify and send to this court a full and complete transcript of the record and sg Sere eine NIE of the proceedings of the said Supreme Court, had in the case of Pearl McAden, Appellant, vs. State of Florida, Ap- . pellee, to the end that this cause may be reviewed and de- f termined by this court as provided for by the statutes of \, the United States; and that the judgment herein of said . Supreme Court be reversed by this court, and for such ul further relief as to this court may seem proper. is Dated this 29th day of May, A. D. 1945. : Parrick C. WHITAKER, Vs Cuar.es F’, Biake, = Tuomas P. WHIrakeEr, " Counsel for Petitioner. st id a- li- in 1S, on ut --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386416_0186%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.