*1 JENNINGS v. ILLINOIS.
NO. 9 5.
Argued 5-6, November 1951. Decided 1951. December *2 Nаthanson, by acting appointment under L. Nathaniel for petitioners and filed briefs Court, argued the causes Calvin n Sawyier, acting P. In No. in all three cases. counsel by the Court as associate appointment and, by brief with Mr. Nathanson petitioner, was hac vice. Court, rgued pro c the cause special leave Wines, of Illi- Attorney Assistant General William C. him on the respondent. the causes for With nois, argued Elliott, Ray- General, and Attorney Ivan A. briefs were Coburn, Attorneys T. S. Sarnow and John Assistant mond General. opinion delivered the
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson the Court. in an Illinois three is
Each confined Peti following crimes. penitentiary serious described, except allegations tioners’ factual need to note that confessions intro petitioners’ specific claims at their trials were from them force and wrung duced Although prima violence. such set forth a has rights,1 facie violation of federal constitutional there been no either trial record determination, review the by hearing evidence, petitioners, as to whether fact, being imprisoned rights are in violation of their under the Constitution. Bongiorno
Prior to the case of
States ex rel.
v.
United
Ragen,
1
Mississippi,
Brown v.
(1936).
inmates decision, many Since courts. to the sending papers of denial of con claims presented have prisoners to determine sought courts stitutional remedy available post-conviction any, if what, been here has problem The claims. Illinois to such raise v. (1945); 760 Woods Ragen, 324 S. v. U. before. White Illinois, 211 Carter v. Nierstheimer, (1946); 328 U. S. 134 Illinois, 332 U. S. Foster (1946); v. S. 173 U. (1947); Ragen, 332 S. 561 v. U. (1947); Marino Loftus Illinois, (1948), S. 804 v. U. be (1949), Young Ragen, 337
Finally, available, was corpus habeas came that unless apparent pris remedy eight for the afforded no the Illinois courts Sher including petitioner Court, beforе the oners then to the Criminal man, here No. 375. On remand now *3 corpus that habeas that court held County, Court of Cook that could not remedy, holding a appropriate was not an- under state Supreme Court be reviewed the Illinois practice. Assembly passed the
Meanwhile, the Illinois General Act2 to a Hearing Post-Conviction Illinois for— remedy who as- penitentiary in the
“[a]ny person imprisoned in his resulted in the whiсh serts rights denial of his there was a substantial conviction States or under the Constitution the United . of Illinois or both . . State place took Act, the court which conviction Under this proceeding in a initiated grant is authorized to relief in which respects forth the filing petition setting the of a were violated. The rights a constitutional prisoner’s petition the answer or move to dismiss may State then testimony receive oral the trial court is authorized to qnd Stat., 1951, Ill. c. 826-832. Rev. §§ petition A on a judgment final documentary proof. in the Illinois is made reviewable the Act filed under writ error.3 Court on Supreme (1950), Dale, Ill. 92 N. E. 2d In People the Post-Conviction Supreme Court sustained the Illinois against attack on Illinois Hearing Act a new providing pro The Act was described grounds. into the constitu required inquiry ceeding to afford the case, In the a conviction. the Dаle integrity tional rehearing a does afford court also stated that Act finally adjudicated, refer already that had been issues had made ring Supreme Court to cases where adjudication. such an Court, petitioners
In now the three cases before trial presented their factual court Act. petitions Hearing filed under the Post-Conviction grounds The Attorney filed motions dismiss State’s of action and judicatа and failure to state cause res petition conducting the trial court dismissed each hearing determining pre- or otherwise factual issues The sented. Court dismissed writ error in argument opinion, each case without and without entering form orders that— providing having petition
“after
examined and
reviewed
post
hearing
and record
the same
found to
no
disclose
violation or denial of
sub-
stantial constitutionаl
petitioner
*4
the
constitution
United States or of the con-
stitution
the State of Illinois.”
granted certiorari,
341
947,
(1951).
U. S.
S. 811
procedures
In a number of recent cases in which other
invoked,
express
this Court has
denied certiorari with
petitioners’
prejudice
proceeding
statement
denial was without
g.,
Ragen,
new Act. E.
(1949).
v.
Walker
Again in these cases, Young Ragen, as v. supra, the Attorney General of Illinois conсedes that petitioners alleged showing facts an infringement of federal rights. Again agrees he that petitioners are or were en titled to a resolution of the factual issues But,, raised. again, the Attorney General explains the action of the state court resting upon an adequate ground of state procedure. Citing certain language Dale, in People v. supra, urges he that the judgments below mеan that Post-Conviction Hearing Act does not an appro priate remedy for consideration of claims were, which . could have been, adjudicated at petitioners’ trials Petitioners claim that they are held in custody vio- lation of the Federal Constitution in that coerced confes- sions were used to obtain their Where, as convictions.. g., People Supero, 4 E. v. People Gehant, Nо. No. 1146, both cases decided May 24, Court on the. 1951. Certiorari was also denied in these cases. 342 U. S.
109 at trial, may be raised claim can a federal hiere, of the make assertion by timely failure to a forfeited be post-conviction if a a correc And, provides state claim.5 and relief de process must invoked that process, tive of a claim of denial substantial nied before In inquiring a federal court.6 be entertained may to peti process such corrective was available any whether Illi we following conviction, note that tioners their the trial bring writ be used to practice, nois of error can before including the-proceedings, a of record, transcript However, peti review. Court for could, if a bill only obtain writ of tioners review error had the trial or the at exceptions reрort period to within limited the trial court been submitted provides transcript conviction.7 after While sen to defendants who have been indigent without cost death, procedure of some Illinois tenced to the absence to permit, adequate to other defendants secure indigent procedure utilize the writ petitioners record could of error only by purchasing transcript pe within the limited following рetitioners riod these conviction.8 Since 5 States, 414, (1944), Yakus v. United cases See 444 and transcripts peti cited therein. As a of the fact' that result ,in post-conviction in the records tioners’ trials are included these 8; stage proceedings, infra, be known note it cannot at this their proceedings that waived all of their claims at trials. 6 Mangum, 309, Frank v. 327 Petitioners See 237 U. objection allege the use do not was used bar coercion having convictions set aside on review. of the confessions from their 7 Stat., peti 1951, 110, At the time Ill. Rev. c. § 259.70A. days, subject convictions, period to extension tioners' was Recently, period period. was extended motion filed within that Stat., 1949, days. Compare 110, § 259.70A. Ill. Rev. to 100 c. Compare Stat., 163b; 38, 1951, 37, id. c. Ill. Rev. c. § 769a. § transcripts of IV) (Supp. The S. C. 2250. §§ record their petitioners’ part trials not been made oaths, Attornеy General paupers’ have taken cases has not available writ error been Illinois concedes that nothing in record find claims, their we *6 to review here do not consider justify position.9 to different aby be might raised any independent question that indigent to defendant provide state’s failure to purpose It transcript of trial. is sufficient his if writ of was not to that, of this case error available in if the is corrеct stat petitioners Attorney and General ing Hearing pro that Post-Conviction Act does remedy in there appropriate type case, vide an of post-conviction been, now, any never has and is not state remedy petitioners’ available for determination of claims infringed. that their have been If if allegations their are their have true claims not been at or after in trial, petitionеrs waived are held in of custody rights. federal constitutional violation to their day Petitioners are entitled in court for resolution post-conviction proceedings. Incomplete excerpts pur- been have chased, meager according petitioners, earnings to out of their while prison. excerpts peti- were Those as to the exhibits attached tions filed the trial court. not, coursе, showing This does foreclose that the State from fact, any petitioners, could have obtained of their review what, determining any, writ of error and from if effect claims any remedy showing availability on the other such a would have require particu The is free to more law. State also petitioners larity these who in the and assertions of Pyle v. papers pro throughout proceedings. se these filed thеir Kansas, 213, (1942). dis- be rejecting suggestion that writs certiorari
In these whether, questionable if the highly missed, note it is at least we that per- stand, petitioners would be judgments permitted to are below j;o claims that again raise in new mitted 1951, Stat., proceedings. III. Rev. been in these could have raised Hearing Jenner, 38, 828, The Illinois 832. See Post-Conviction c. §§ Act, D. 9 F. R.
Ill remedy, not afford a the state does Where issues. these corpus for а writ of habeas may apply prisoner a state protection Court to secure District States the United rights.10 his federal affirm the to of Illinois asks us Attorney
The General state upon an resting independent judgments below action acknowledges he that such though ground even Court in the District permit proceed to would that a state lightly But we do not assume without more. if remedy any post-conviction provide has failed imprisoned in violation a defendant we rights.11 Accordingly, appropriate consider Court definite permitted raised these questions to the state law answers cases. *7 Illinois, however, supra, v. our action
Unlike Loftus pending docket we continue these cases on our do not In Supreme Court. by the further consideration remand the below and stead, judgments we vacate the procee for further Court cases Co., v. Tea 309 U. S. dings. Minnesota National See should advised (1940). remand, petitioners 551 On were in rights whether their claims that constitutional under the Post- their trials be determined fringed at may Act, that Act does Hearing or whether Conviction If remedy in these cases. state provide appropriate an proceeding may claims be resolvecTm petitioners' verity of their into the Act, inquiry either an that federal finding or a factual may trials, or after their such resolution during waived 10 Olson, IV) (c) (3), 2254; v. 326 Hawk (Supp. 2241 C. 28 U. S. §§ 42, 46 (1945); Mayo, (1945); 271, House v. 276 U. S. Dempsey, 261 (1944); Hawk, Moore v. 118 parte Ex (1923) U. S. 86 . O’Grady, 312 U. S. Ragen, supra; Smith Young v. If Illi- further action this Court. proceed without remedy an such appropriate nois does not more determination, may proceed without States District Court. United It so ordered. is see of Mr. Minton, dissenting opinion Justice [For post, p. 116.] Frankfurter, Justice dissenting.
Mr. (cid:127) all I agree, ought impute that we not to assume, flouting adjudica- obstinate of this Court’s repeated tions to highest court of a' its action State unless precludes any other fair inference. This is more than a mere gesture courtesy.. It goes very conception to the the relationship of the State courts to this Court ‘.of our federal system. just Accordingly, legal as reasonable ground must be dispositions attributed to our. opinion, explаnations so rationally legal- consonant with ity must be attributed to the Illinois orders.
One difficulty with the remand of the cases to Illinois the explanatory opinion .that uncertainty regard- leaves ing the issue which this Court is asking the Illinois Supreme Court for clarification. The orders under review may rest on one of two legally grounds: entertainable (a) the Illinois proceedings disclose no infraction of the Fourteenth Amendment, (b) as a matter of local procedural law, the claim of such infraction was not *8 properly presented.
If think we that a substantial federal claim is raised in cases, these for which a hearing was required but de- nied, and the denial could only justified be al- because procedure lowable local was' disregarded in the manner in which right this federal pursued, was it ap- would be propriate, of for course, us to ask‘the Supreme Court’ to tell us explicitly whether these cases went off it what is. See and if so a ground, non-federal such Co., 551. If this Tea v. National Minnesota not -to be too do, ought it means to is the Court what to But very so say to opinion simply. for difficult that a federal we must be convinced adopt course, but which, by the record presented is claim of substance en- is requirement, procedural for State the legitimate suggest shоuld, then, at to titled heard. We least what that is. claim rest, not on a may Illinois orders
Alternatively, these a substantial to entertain justifiable refusal procedurally court that of the Illinois claim, but on the view federal If the Court claim is issue. no substantial federal such to the to remand the case certainly proper it is disagrees, hearing to to the with instructions accord State court right presented. claim fedеral on this Court case, is not incumbent But either what substan any to roundaboutness state us? is how it is before properly tial question federal substantial It the formulation of the to me that seems is the Illinois Court claim, which to cases. is crucial issue these to been deaf, said are if the Illinois exactly where we now would be to reply most our respectfully Supreme Court by saying: “Why clarification course request Illinois law оf a substantial hearing required under Constitution. But in these States claim under United no such substantial federal claim.”1 we found cases question? Certainly the substantial isWhat been a claim which could have raised whether interpret Indeed, the orders before us for review it is difficult by the saying anything else: “It is further considered Court petition having and record examined and reviewed after hearing no violation post the same is found tо disclose petitioner or denial of substantial constitutional States . . ." of the United constitution *9 trial but was of direct review of tne method in allowed to be raised some collateral at- not, must be federal Such a re- tack, question. is not a substantial made of the Four- quirement cannot be States under the teenth Amendment. It is not enforceable as to even Large, 332 174. prosecutions. Sunal v.
Is the denial then thе claim steno graphic indigent of a trial to an I minutes defendant? appreciate that such a in might denial be found violation of the Amendment, par Fourteenth and more ticularly Equal of its Protection in a Clause, State which a system has criminal Is decided appeals. being general now? And is so in far-reaching claim decided ferentially, argument without or consideration of all the subsidiary relevant questions gеneral proposition that the would raise?2
Or does the Court hold that, the circumstances of this case, entitled, are of fed- as matter eral right, independent to an into inquiry the constitu- tional validity their though convictions even the ques- tions were, raised been, could have at determined
2It is at least existing relevant to remind that under federal habeas corpus procedure, judge presided resulting who at thе trial may prepare “setting occurring a certificate forth the facts corpus at the trial” for use in the habeas court. 28 U. S. C. 2245 § (I 1948). am not unmindful “judge’s of 2250 enacted And the § appellate' notes” is the England, which, historic basis for review it, I “bystander’s take is a mode not unlike that of the record” in argue question some of the States. I do not now mean to the main subsidiary problems upon nor its nor to intimate considered view them. But as an indication of the kind of issues are raised be-? reaching general proposition fore a conclusion and abstract provide stenographic that failure to minutes cost to an in- digent guaranty defendant a violation of a of the Fourteenth Amendment, something history touching it is useful to recall errors at nisi by,which brought the means to the attention.of an are appellate court. pro- if what are the circumstances which And so
trials? for that conclusion? vide a basis *10 with opinion A of the Court’s the reading care a doubter has that should accorded deference if of claims possible which these not revealed basis for necessary to has been denied so as the State court. a remand to ambiguity merely is not with difficulty,- however, My right in the federal which or, perhaps, obscurity defining was, may been, or denied the Illinois I weakness, it, Thе fatal see is that here for review. putative of a denial of one or more question raised on the record before us. properly is nowhere were petitioners allege they It is true that convicted perjured testimony confessions' and the basis coerced in Fourteenth admitted in evidence violation record, But far as from appears Amendment. so at the fully litigated these issues werе and determined showing trials. to no Court, Until the cases came this were made, sought made, was to be that circumstances such as into independent inquiry to warrant new and those right. determinations as a matter of federal from petitioners appealed
Whether these could have their but did not, procedures convictions what avail- able for an perfecting appeal, whether the circumstаnces effectively deny were such as to to these opportunity for direct review of their convictions —an- swers all these are to a questions judg- to indispensable if scope right, any, ment on the nature and of the' federal may. which Illinois have denied these this prisoners they But are in the questions entangled proceeding. and circum- procedural Taw Illinois and in.'the facts surrounding petitioners. of these stances fconviction on them because passed The Illinois courts have never were, can they nor we they raised. And neither never pass they appropriate on them unless are raised some way. Whitney California, (Mr. 379-380 Brandeis, concurring). Justice course, self-composed Of we read the of an in- claims digent generous defendant with and do not inferences not make require elegancе pleading. We do such ought dig to lawyers’ pleadings. exaction even it; surely of a and State courts complaint out what is obligation when questions feel themselves under similar entirely right are involved. But this is constructing vaguely different from a new case not even adumbrated in a court to complaint which moves ought litigation action. Still less this Court to originate way disrespect judgment when do so is implicitly, difficult *11 decide, а State court and to at least of fact questions the foundation needed to their consideration. and circumstance illumine join I dis- light, views, In of these cannot the Court’s I think be dis- position of these cases. the writs should properly presented question.. for want of a missed proceed- bar a new not, course, a dismissal would Such one or more of the differently conceived, tendering ing, what- if, for Certainly here discussed. questions afford reason, the courts fail to corrective ever right for the denial of a United relief guaranteed is open. federal court Constitution, the road to States Holohan, Dowd v. United Mooney 103; Cook, At S. 206. the core States ex rel. of the basis precise definition problem remains Amendment. invoking the Fourteenth Minton, dissenting, Me. Justice the Illinois opinion I I am of the dissent as upon adequate judgment opinion Court based its state ground.