Opposition Brief — Lee v. Alabama

FILE COPY eae

DEC 80 1946

CHARLES ELwORE oncrury

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNMED STATES”

OCTOBER TERM, 1946

No. 662

HUEY R. LER, Jr., sy His Next Frienp,

L. D. TURBERVILLE,

Petitioner,

Us.

STATE OF ALABAMA,

Respondent

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF

CERTIORARI

Y Wittam N. McQveen,

Attorney General of Alabama;

Vv Jonn O. Harris,

Assistant Attorney General of Alabama,

Counsel for Respondent.

INDEX

Sussect Inpex

Opinion of the Court below .......................

ee ET Es PEPE ER ET PEER E TE TCE EE TTT ee

I Or OE OD 8 eae cask koese bk nean sae

PI SN fe sence crewdccgeNewep eee

| EPR a Ee ee ee ere ee ee rere Ue eee

winiatiee

TABLE OF STATUTES

Code of Alabama 1940, Title 15, Sections 423, 425,

OE Be etd i Ei AS 5 trina in ae

Code of Alabama 1940, Title 45, Section 222........

U. 8. C. A., Title 26, Section 344.................5.

D> >

Tas_e or Cases Crrep

Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19...................

Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309...................

French v. Hopkins (Cal. 1888), 124 U. 8. 524, 8 Sup.

ee a I 5 Ack nk ase Nag hs ad cadesnas

Gasquet v. Lapeyre, et al., 242 U.S. 367............

Gibson v. Mississippi (Miss. 1896), 162 U. S. 565, 16

a ree ns es I I oie ccs ek sce assscen

Grand Rapids, etc. R. Co. v. Butler (Mich. 1895), 159

U. S. 87, 15 Sup. Ct. 991, 40 L. Ed. 85

Harice LeRoy Carter, Petitioner, v. People of the

State of Illinois, Sup. Ct. of the U. S., Advance

Sheets, October Term, 1946, No. 36, December 9,

RR at i neler ear

Hysler v. Florida, 315 U. 8S. 411

io) io) wb oO >

3

4

Iowa Cent. R. Co. v. Iowa (Iowa 1896), 160 U. S.

389, 16 Sup. Ct. 344, 40 L. Ed. 467................ 3

Johnson v. Williams, Warden, 13 So. (2d) 683 4

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. 8. 458... ... 2... 2020.0... 3, 4

Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396, 107 So. 535 4

Loeber v. Schroeder (Md. 1893), 149 U. S. 580, 13

Sup. Ct. 934, 37 L. Ed. 856... ..

—8304

ee eee

ii INDEX

Page

Milkwagon Drivers Union of Chicago, Local 753 v.

Meadowmoor Dairies, Ill., 312 U. S. 287, 61 Sup.

+e Fe & re oer ener 3

Mooney v. Hollohan, 294 U.S. 108................. 4

Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86.................... 3

McNulty v. California (Cal. 1893), 149 U. S. 645, 13

eee § 6 8 Peer ere 2

Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Patterson (Mont. 1894), 154

U. S. 130, 14 Sup. Ct. 977, 39 L. Ed. 934........... 3

O’Neil v. Vermont (Vt. 1892), 144 U. S. 323, 12 Sup.

x BS PR eae ee 2

Thornington v. Montgomery (Ala. 1893), 147 U. S.

490, 13 Sup. Ct. 394, 37 L. Ed. 252................ 2

Tripp v. Santa Rosa St. R. Co. (Cal. 1892), 144 U. S.

126, 12 Sup. Ct. 655, 36 L. Ed. 372................ 2

Vincent v. California (Cal. 1893), 149 U. S. 648, 13

eee 8 5 8 Ree er eee 2

Wood v. Brady (Cal. 1893), 150 U. S. 18, 14 Sup. Ct.

|] Bk Rae eee eal Se 2

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1946

No. 662

HUEY R. LEE, Jr., sy His Next Frienp,

L. D. TURBERVILLE,

a Petitioner,

STATE OF ALABAMA,

Respondent

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF

CERTIORARI

I

Opinion of the Court Below

The opinion of the Supreme Court of Alabama has not

been officially reported, but is published in 27 So. 2d 147.

See record pages 308-314. The original conviction of

petitioner is officially reported in 246 Ala. 343, 20 So. 2d

471.

Il

Jurisdiction

Petitioner seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court

to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama

rendered in this cause, anc relies upon Section 237 (b) of

—4

'

’

the United States Judicial Code as amended on February |

13, 1945, 43 Stat. 987 (U. S. C. A., Title 28, Section 344)

2

as giving this Court jurisdiction.

Ill

Statement of the Case

We do not deem it necessary to set forth a statement

of this case. The opinion of the Supreme Court of Ala-

bama as reported in the record before this Court, begin-

ning on page 309 to top of page 311, reflects the true facts

in the history of this case and is incorporated herein by |

reference.

—_——~w

Proposition of Law

I

A decision of a state court resting on grounds of state

procedure does not present a Federal question.

French v. Hopkins (Cal. 1888), 124 U. S. 524, 8 S. Ct.

589, 31 L. Ed. 536;

O’Neil v. Vermont (Vt. 1892), 144 U. S. 323, 12 S. Ct.

693, 36 L. Ed. 450;

Tripp v. Santa Rosa St. R. Co. (Cal. 1892), 144 U.S.

126, 12 S. Ct. 655, 36 L. Ed. 372;

Thorington v. Montgomery (Ala. 1893), 147 U. S. 490,

13 S. Ct. 394, 37 L. Ed. 252;

Loeber v. Schroeder (Md. 1893), 149 U. S. 580, 13

S. Ct. 934, 37 L. Ed. 856;

McNulty v. California (Cal. 1893), 149 U. S. 645, 13

——

wes. .— _——-—

. .

S. Ct. 959, 37 L. Ed. 882; |

Vincent v. California (Cal. 1893), 149 U. S. 648, 13 |

S. Ct. 960, 37 L. Ed. 884; |

Wood v. Brady (Cal. 1893), 150 U. S. 18, 14 S. Ct. 6,

37 L. Ed. 981;

ee

Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Patterson (Mont. 1894), 154

| U. S. 130, 14 S. Ct. 977, 38 L. Ed. 934;

| Grand Rapids, etc. R. Co. v. Butler (Mich. 1895), 159

U. S. 87, 15 S. Ct. 991, 40 L. Ed. 85;

lowa Cent. R. Co. v. Iowa (Iowa 1896), 160 U. S. 389,

16 S. Ct. 344, 40 L. Ed. 467;

| Gibson v. Mississippi (Miss. 1896), 162 U. S. 565, 16

| S. Ct. 904, 40 L. Ed. 1075;

Milkwagon Drivers Union of Chicago, Local 753 v.

Meadowmoor Dairies, Ill., 312 U. S. 287, 61 8S. Ct.

: 552, 85 L. Ed. 836;

Gasquet v. Lapeyre, et al., 242 U. S. 367;

Harice LeRoy Carter, Petitioner, v. People of the State

of Illinois, S. Ct. of the U. S., Advance Sheets,

' October Term, 1946, No. 36, December 9, 1946.

3

ARGUMENT

The Supreme Court of Alabama did not decide a Federal

‘ question of substance not heretofore determined by this

| Court. Neither did it decide any question presented to it

\ in this case in a way probably not in accord with applicable

decisions of this Court, but fully and fairly decided the is-

sues sought here to be reviewed on an independent non-

federal ground.

The decision in this case is based primarily and solely

on the ground that the petition filed with the Supreme

Court of Alabama for leave to file in the Circuit Court of

Barbour County, Alabama, a petition for writ of error

coram nobis was wholly lacking in that degree of substan-

tiality required of petitions of this kind.

Alabama adopted this common law writ as its response

to the requirements of certain decisions of the Supreme

Court of the United States (Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. 8.

309; Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86; Johnson v. Zerbst,

—

+

304 U. S. 458; Mooney v. Hollohan, 294 U. 8. 103; Bowen

v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19; Hysler v. Florida, 315 U. 8. 411):

‘‘For the judicial correction of a wrong committed in

the administration of criminal justice and resulting in

a deprivation of life or liberty without due processs

of law.’’

Johnson v. Williams, Warden, 13 So. 2d 683.

It is not a writ of right, but may be granted in the exer-

cise of sound judicial discretion, and will not be granted

unless it be duly shown that a fact existed at the trial,

that, if then known to the Court would have prevented the

judgment that was rendered. Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396,

107 So. 535. .

A petitioner must make a full disclosure of the facts

relied on by him and not merely his conclusions as to the

nature and effect of such facts. The proof must enable the

appellate court to determine whether under settled prin-

ciples pertaining to the writ that the facts alleged would

afford just grounds for the application to the lower court

for the writ of error coram nobis. Hysler v. Florida, 315

U.S. 411.

The procedural machinery in Alabama is such that every

insane person charged with a crime, or convicted of a

crime, has a remedy.

Title 15, Section 423, Code of Alabama 1940;

Title 15, Section 425, Code of Alabama 1940;

Title 15, Section 426, Code of Alabama 1940;

Title 15, Section 428, Code of Alabama 1940;

Title 45, Section 222, Code of Alabama 1940.

It may be seen from the above statutes that ample oppor-

tunity is afforded every one in Alabama accused of a

criminal offense or convicted of a criminal offense to have

the question of his sanity passed upon before or after

conviction by a jury or by a sanity commission.

|

——w.

5

These statutes, supra, are not at war with either the Fifth

or Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Consti-

tution, but, on the contrary, fully afford methods to prevent

an insane person from being tried in the courts of Alabama

or retained in the prisons of Alabama.

For these reasons, we believe that this Court does not

have jurisdiction in this case, and, on such reasons, we

respectfully move to dismiss the petition here sought.

Wittum N. McQueen,

Attorney General;

Joun O. Harris,

Assistant Attorney General,

Counsel for Respondent.

(8304)

_ o