Jump to content

Procunier v. Atchley

From Wikisource
Procunier v. Atchley
Syllabus
940564Procunier v. Atchley — Syllabus
Court Documents
Concurring Opinion
Black

United States Supreme Court

400 U.S. 446

Procunier, Director, California Department of Corrections  v.  Atchley

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

No. 44.  Argued: November 18, 1970 --- Decided: January 19, 1971

Respondent was convicted in 1959 of murdering his wife. A recorded statement, made in jail to an insurance agent in connection with discussion of a policy on the life of respondent's wife, was admitted into evidence at the trial. The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the statement voluntary. Respondent later sought habeas corpus relief, contending that the statement was involuntary. The District Court granted relief on the ground that the trial court had excluded relevant evidence on the issue of voluntariness and thus "did not reliably determine whether [the] confession was voluntary or involuntary." The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: An applicant for federal habeas corpus relief is not entitled to a new hearing on the voluntariness of a statement introduced at his trial merely because he can point to shortcomings in the state court procedure used to decide the voluntariness issue, as he must also show (which respondent did not do in this case) that his version of the events, if true, would require the conclusion that the statement was involuntary. Pp. 451-454.

412 F. 2d 230, reversed.


STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and DOUGLAS, HARLAN, BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. BLACK, J., filed a concurring statement, post, p. 454.


Robert R. Granucci, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and William D. Stein, Deputy Attorney General.

Charles A. Legge argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

Notes

[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse