Jessie Wayne Satterfield v. Robert F. Zahradnick, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary
572 F.2d 443
4th Cir.
1978
Check Treatment

*2 WINTER, Before RUSSELL and WID- ENER, Judges. Circuit indigent’s right impartial psychiatric to an WIDENER, Judge: the issue enable him to evaluation to was convicted Wayne Satterfield Jessie court, insanity before the trial see U. S. murder, and first nonjury trial of Baldi, ex rel. Smith unsuccess- term. After to a life sentenced (1953), 97 L.Ed. 549 we are of Supreme appealing fully opinion, authority, there exists no post-con- failing to obtain State Court right appointment constitutional *3 habeas relief, a writ of sought he viction psychiatrist of the defendant’s own private Court District United States in the corpus McGarty v. choosing public expense. at The Virginia. of District the Eastern for O’Brien, 1951); (1st 188 F.2d 151 Cir. see relief, and Satterfield court denied district 109, Harris, U.S.App.D.C. v. 134 413 Proctor his constitutional claiming that appeals, (1969). F.2d 383 following in the at trial rights were violated by psy was examined Satterfield appoint refusal to (1) the court’s instances: Hospital pursu at chiatrists Central State expense to at State psychiatrist private a 19.1-228, competent to and found to ant insanity de- of an development the aid in addition, diagnosed he was stand trial. In in clos- fense; comment (2) the responsible at the time being criminally as to tes- failure on ing argument Satterfield’s challenge the murder was committed. No an asser- regarding his own behalf tify in objectivity competence the or is made to of self-defense; of (3) application the tion of the examining psychiatrists; the assertion pre- and of malice presumptions Virginia’s incomplete their was and erro report that the prosecutions, and in murder meditation appears to be little more than a refer neous proof of self-de- the burden of allocation of inconsistency report ence to an between the defendant; (4) admis- and the to the fense testimony physician by of a called and the involuntary, allegedly of sion into evidence the defense who never examined Satter by the ac- incriminating statutory statements field. We are satisfied that the procedure provided adequate opportuni We discuss each of an police. cused to the ty place any pertaining to issues to the contentions, conclude that the these mental condition of the accused before the corpus of habeas re- court’s denial district Campbell Superintend trial court. v. See be affirmed. lief should ent, (W.D.Va.1974), aff’d F.Supp. 386 778 whether, light in first consider We (4th 1976) (unpublished 539 F.2d 705 Cir. for com Virginia’s statutory provision of Commonwealth, opinion); Houghtailing v. to a State mitting a criminal defendant 309, (1968).1 209 Va. 163 560 No S.E.2d obser examination and facility mental Baldi, more is v. su required. See Smith 19.1-228, vation, a further Va. Code Ann. § pra. especially This is true when we con upon the State duty devolves constitutional physician sider that the defense testified at private psychiatrist State appoint to defendant, report the the of the while indigent defend the benefit of expense for not submitted into evi psychiatrists was duty him, agree against that such as was not their testimo ants. We cannot dence ny. an may be the extent of exists. Whatever that, noting placing points It is worth that the burden the Cen- of out because

1. Satterfield proof insanity Hospital report introduced on a criminal defendant does was not tral State Wilbur, evidence, Mullaney not the rule of v. 421 of either violate into there was no evidence 1881, 684, (1975), competency to stand trial or his 95 S.Ct. 44 L.Ed.2d 508 his mental proved beyond responsibility the record. Be that the State a reasonable criminal may, proof charged. burden of of the offense See as it Satterfield bore the doubt all elements law, Bloodgood York, 197, these issues under New 432 U.S. 97 on Patterson v. Commonwealth, 253, 2319, (1977); 183 S.E.2d 737 212 Va. 281 Rivera v. Dela- 53 L.Ed.2d ware, 877, 226, (1971); of evidence would not so the absence 50 L.Ed.2d 160 429 U.S. 97 S.Ct. that, (1976) (appeal must assume inure to his benefit. One of a dismissed for want substan- report been favorable to question). the had Central tial federal position, have intro- would the defendant’s he those at trial or called duced it into evidence physicians as witnesses. 446 attorney, shifted the burden proof Commonwealth’s to the

The defend argument, referred Satter closing respect his ant with to essential elements of testify to take the stand to field’s failure the crime of first murder. See Pat support claim of self-defense. While York, 197, of his v. New terson 432 U.S. 97 S.Ct. rule of we have serious doubts that (U.S. June 1977); California,2 Griffin v. S.Ct. Mullaney Wilbur, 421 U.S. 1229,14 (1965), would obtain in 1881,44 L.Ed.2d (1975). L.Ed.2d 508 Also raised for bench, a trial we of this claim dispose time in first this court the similar ground. on another claim that defendant unconstitu tionally required to bear the burden of for the failed Counsel defendant proof on the issue of self-defense. object argument at time it was made, law. Rus required by Virginia as is contentions, We decline to consider these Commonwealth, 256-57, so v. 207 Va. are which raised for the first time ap- denied, (1966), cert. 386 U.S. S.E.2d 820 peal, having by been considered neither the *4 909, 855, (1967). 87 17 782 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d courts State nor the district court. 28 to, objected not contraven Errors at trial in 2254; Gillenwater, v. U.S.C. McGowan objection contemporaneous tion of State 1970). (4th 429 586 F.2d Cir. rules, cognizable are in habeas not federal Finally, reject we corpus proceedings, showing absent a of Satterfield’s assertion that oral non-compliance prejudice. cause and written and confessions 72, Wainwright Sykes, against v. 97 introduced into evidence 433 S.Ct. him were 2497, Here, (1977). involuntary, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 the rec and hence inadmissible under Arizona, objection by 436, ord reveals that no was made Miranda v. 384 U.S. attorney deliberately 1602, (1966). Satterfield’s and out It is conceded objection of a real concern that an made at that was read his Satterfield Miranda might that have practical time had the ef rights prior making to the of both state fect to the We prejudice of accused. need police, that he signed ments and a place precise not to attempt limits the rights. written waiver of those His testi meaning type of cause to observe that this mony hearing at the to determine voluntar calculated, of tactical trial decision has nev acknowledged he was iness that informed preclusive er been to avoid the effect rights held of his and disclaimed that his state procedural subsequent of in defaults were induced either by ments force or proceedings. Henry federal v. promises part police. habeas See on the of the 443, 451, 564, S.Ct. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 85 with this Faced considerable evidence of (1965); Noia, Fay 408 372 L.Ed.2d to nothing voluntariness and indicate the L.Ed.2d 837 contrary, that, the trial judge concluded (1963). some support absent evidence- in of the appeal involuntariness, Raised for the is of first time on claim which the defense the that two to presumptions put under intended on at a later time .contention when its law, petitioner available, which claims now medical witness would be the con- him, to applied presumption were a of mal fession would be considered admissible. No pre ice from an unlawful of improper presumptions homicide and were employed. trial, prior meditation from use of a this was a weapon non-jury Since the judge possession accused, the unconstitutionally presumed disregard of be to should the confes- instruction, judge 2. that Griffin holds a criminal Fifth a trial well defendant’s is aware that no right Amendment to is remain silent unconsti- are inferences to be drawn from a defendant’s tutionally infringed by jury testify presumed when told the the to failure and can be to disre- may court that adverse be drawn gard improper inferences contrary. comments against the defendant from his failure to take judge The record here the shows that did notice the stand his own behalf. weighed against it the comment and the Com- prisoner. may jury against While such comment monwealth rather than influence a beyond to a the reach a curative they that convinced he later became if sions admitted into evi- improperly

had been COMPANY, HAUGHTON ELEVATOR out, the defendant’s turned As it dence. Casualty Surety and the Aetna Com- voluntariness question on the evidence Petitioners, pany, Employer/Carrier, to this impress judge failed to obviously amply sup- was extent, and his decision the evidence. by ported LEWIS, Claimant, Respondent. Ernest A. AFFIRMED. No. 76-2450. Judge, specially con- WINTER, Circuit Appeals, United States Court of curring: Fourth Circuit. and I concur in the result I concur would, I majority opinion. most of the Argued Dec. 1977. however, the determination Decided Feb. fail- to Satterfield’s reference prosecutor’s support of his claim of testify in ure to invalidate his convic- not

self-defense did ground. different upon a somewhat

tion non-jury. While his was tried

Satterfield object failed

counsel made, that it he at the time

statement objection day later in the delayed guilty had returned a the trial court

after *5 California, Even if Griffin

verdict. 85 S.Ct. application solely in its

(1965), is not limited trials, the record in the instant case jury of doubt that beyond peradventure

shows prejudice did not violation of Griffin

any from This conclusion follows

Satterfield. judge of the trial to Satter- response objection counsel’s

field’s judge The trial said:

comment. immediately I erased the time [the

[A]t my from mind be- prosecutor’s comment] any it a matter of fact if had

cause as

effect, militating the effect of it had because I

favor of [Satterfield] comment should not be that such aware Winter, Judge, specially Circuit filed a therefore, and, it had a backlash concurring opinion. effect, whatever. I if it had effect my out of mind. kept purposely Russell, Judge, Donald dissent- view, us there is thus no need for my In opinion. ed with an “prejudice” undertake to fathom contemporaneous exception “cause” Wainwright rule stated

objection 53 L.Ed.2d

Sykes, (1977). Especially is this so since will un- has stated that it

Supreme Court concepts ap- to define these

dertake an at case. 433 U.S.

propriate