# Opposition Brief — Lee v. Alabama

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386416_0908%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1947
- **Citation:** 329 U.S. 808

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386416_0908%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.