John Wesley Ralls v. John R. Manson, Commissioner of Correction of the State of Connecticut

LUMBARD, Special This and TIM- Public Defender is a Before HAYS date. lawyer requested BERS, Judges. specifically whom Ralls Circuit represent appeal. appointed be him on During approximately period of PER CURIAM: years filing three and one-half from Respondent-appellant, John R. Man- appeal present of the notice of to the son, of Correction Commissioner date, steps pur- taken various have been appeals Connecticut, from a State Book suant the Connecticut Practice 10, judgment May entered appeal perfect Ralls’ direct Court United States District Supreme been in- Court. We have Joseph Connecticut, M. Blu- District of menfeld, appeal printed on formed that the record granting peti- Judge, District Supreme filed Court was with corpus filed tion for of habeas writ Supreme 1973; 31, October Wesley petitioner-appellee, Ralls, a John briefing schedule that Court has fixed a prisoner presently at incarcerated by Septem- filed calls for all briefs be Institution Correctional the Connecticut 18, 1974; ber serving a sen- at where he Somers argument of the has scheduled the Court imprisonment imposed after tence of life term, October 1974 second de- his conviction gree argued appeal will means judgment reverse the murder. We during October.1 pe- and dismiss the District Court corpus. Backing for a of habeas moment, tition writ filed up for a Ralls original petition for a writ of habeas 1970, 15, indicted on June Ralls was corpus October Court on the District charged on March the murder petition was an amended mother-in-law, Barbara of his Mrs. pages Ralls, Journal, No. XXXV Conn.Law W. John State Connecticut See (June 18, 1974); note and see infra. agree By filed on December doWe reach merits of Ralls’ claims; ment of counsel in the habeas express substantive nor do we proceedings,2 any opinion Court they present District decided as to whether sup record, the case on state court issues federal constitutional dimen- plemented by affidavits, exhibits various sions. stipulations. evidentiary No hear We reverse the of the Dis 7, 1974, May held. Dis On petition trict Court and dismiss the sole trict Court filed a memorandum of deci ly ground on the that Ralls has failed to holding, pen first, despite sion the by required exhaust state remedies as dency appeal of Ralls’ direct to the state 2254(b). Connor, v. Picard 404 § Supreme Court, it cannot be said that (1971); 270 United States ex rel. Gibbs to failed state remedies as exhaust Zelker, (2 1974); v. 496 F.2d 991 Cir. required 2254(b) (1970); 28 U.S.C. § Zelker, United States ex rel. Nelson v. second, of Ralls’ five substantive (2 Cir.), F.2d denied, 465 1121 cert. 409 alleged of con claims denial of federal U.S. 1045 rights trial,3 at state two stitutional his “(1) (i. the be sustained e. deplore delay we While the in obtain improperly his informed of ing review of Ralls’ murder conviction prior “(2) arrests”, and the trial appeal direct Supreme to the Court judge’s jury applied the instructions to of Connecticut,4 hold, totality we on the agree improper pressure on the of the facts and presented circumstances third, verdict”); and, to a that Ralls us, the record before this case discharged custody un from should be present does not a clear denial of consti sixty less within afforded new trial rights justify tutional sufficient fed days. May 20, en the District Court On eral Specifically, intervention. we hold staying execution of tered an order there is neither “an absence judgment pending expedited appeal an process available State corrective [nor] 4, we to our On June Court. rendering the existence of circumstances ap expedited appellant’s an motion for protect ineffective to appeal peal June and we heard rights prisoner.” 2254(b) (last § request, each counsel for At our 14. clause). delay processing here in argument, us, prior to side furnished appeal the direct equivalent not respective ver of their short statements complete appellate Su evidence at the absence of sions of the essential state effective perior proc trial. Court therefore does ess5 represented in 2. the federal Ralls has been Zelker, States ex rel. Gibbs F.2d proceedings (2 1974) other (5 years). counsel habeas Cir. appellate counsel; than state but Indeed, Supreme Connecticut, 5. Court of to- state have conferred federal and gether during counsel fixing briefing argument in schedule pendency habeas case, in the instant State of Connecticut v. corpus proceedings, at we were informed Ralls, supra 1, pointed John W. note out the argument appeal. the oral of the instant provided by remedies §§ Practice Book expediting appeals and 762 for : ar- us informed the oral counsel “The rules in contained the Practice gument appeal five instant period Book ‘set forth the time each essentially same substantive claims are step appeal. periods govern Those his di- claims that Ralls intends to raise on good modifying unless there is cause for rect of Con- Court them. And the cause which is asserted to necticut. good explicitly one should be set ap deplore delays IVe likewise on direct forth an motion for extension filed peals granting in criminal cases other districts under Practice Book 655. The § g., court, ex E. United within this Circuit. of such a how- motion LaVallee, ever, power rel. Mosher in no wise affects the of this years) 1974) ; (2 (3½ expedí- compel n. 1 court under § 696 who, rem nev- der of his mother-in-law —but failure to exhaust

excuse the ertheless, federal seeks relief edies. alleged although defects courts Dis- We reverse he claims occurred in the state petition for trict and dismiss the Court evidentiary only proceedings relate corpus. a writ of habeas rulings procedural which could integrity the find- have affected the Judge (concur- LUMBARD, Circuit guilt. reviewing of his After sever- ring) : during petitions al thousand such concur, I reasons different years bench, on the federal I have seen per from in the court’s cur- those stated only inno- two or three where a claim of history opinion. procedural iam seriously As I cence could be advanced.1 not so much that this case shows agree Powell, with all that Justice Mr. prisoner to exhaust his has failed writing also for the Chief Justice pursuit of remedies but rather Rehnquist, persua- Mr. has Justice so him. those remedies has exhausted sively concurring opinion stated in his which it not for the considerations Were Bustamonte, in Schneckloth persuade petition me that should be 2041, 250-275, 93 S.Ct. petition dismissed, I would think the colleague (1973), and what our very questions raised of due serious Judge Friendly written, Inno- has Is enjoyment of the because the cence Attacks Irrelevant? Collateral long right delayed appeal to so has been Judgments, on Criminal 38 U.Chi.L.Rev. judicial by action of the state and its of- I think time has come to right nullified ficers that has been petitions limit consideration of such to large part. in few, those rare cases where there is petition by claim of innocence and an al- colorable This is another a state leged error of dimensions prisoner pretense constitutional who no that he makes goes for which he integrity was innocent of the crime of fact mur- the calculated convicted—here finding process.2 processing appeals. . . . tious Un- ants, it was not in the until this late date will, re- as occasion der this court year § court and on eve the court’s ad- quires, wheth- make its own determination journment for the summer recess that filed, er, appeal is an from the time sought provi- the benefit of the being prosecuted diligence proper with sions of 762 of the Book. We § Practice .... work of this court is ex- The also note that neither defendant has ever pedited dally permitted if to sought provisions counsel are the benefit of the of either op- purpose bargaining for the position, with Book, §§ 696 or 762 of the Practice choos- personal or be- ignore availability convenience instead to of re- proceed by cause other cases in hand are deemed lief under these sections and to preferential way them corpus to deserve treatment.’ of writs of habeas in the fed- Chanosky City Building Supply . . . lias, nonetheless, eral district court which Co., 449, 451-52, jurisdiction.” omitted). 208 A.2d 337. (footnotes Conn. assumed any party appeal an fails When 1. One such rare case is United ex rel. prosecute appeal with or defend that Montanye, Cannon v. 486 F.2d 263 proper diligence party, or this the other may motion, court dismiss the on its own Fleming, or set aside the also M. See The of Perfect Price Also, ; (1974) Bator, Finality in the § costs. Practice Book Justice in expediting Corpus interest for other decision or Criminal Law and Federal Habeas good cause, may suspend Prisoners, court for State Harv.L.Rev. requirements provisions application party recently granted rules on the or on of a Court has proceedings raising question its own motion and order review in a case prisoner pleaded in accordance with its direction. Practice whether a state who has guilty Book § 762. can raise Fourth Amendment claim Although proceeding avail- remedies have been a federal habeas when able to the state and to each of defend- state courts have reviewed the claim. Unit- proof produced by The uncontroverted sister, told him She to call his who had four-day state at the trial showed received a letter to him from his wife. beyond any doubt that Ralls killed his telephone Ralls made the call and was firing mother-in-law upset by four bullets into the letter which was read to body range.3 her at close him. Ralls then went to his room to lie got up down. He around 9:00 and Sunday, drove On March at about to Mrs. Howell’s pick up home to afternoon, body 1:00 or 1:30 clothes, returned about 9:20 or 9:30 aof woman was floor discovered on the clothes, again. with the and left He parked aof maroon Chevrolet behind came back about 3:00 that afternoon. First National on Dixwell Avenue Store Mrs. Rawls testified that she did not woman, Hamden, Connecticut. The feelings know about Ralls’ toward mother-in-law, Howell, Barbara Ralls’ mother-in-law, previously but she had gunshot multiple had died of wounds police that Ralls had threatened au- the head chest from a caliber .32 “get” his wife and mother-in-law. pistol. The time of death was tomatic daughter between and 11:00 aged 8, estimated to be 9:00 Sharon, testi- morning. aged A search of the Chevro- Michell, fied that her sister let cas- gun three .32 caliber shell revealed laid a on the floor' of their bedroom ings. fingerprint only presence identifiable Jacquelyn of her sister right vent car, aged taken from the Jacquelyn, and herself. testified window, thumb- morning was shown be Ralls’ that her sister had said that print. going that their father was hurt their grandmother, but that she asked him separated from his wife Ralls was and he had said “no.” parents’ Gwendolyn lived and at his daughters. Benja- Gwendolyn with his Ralls, petitioner’s wife, house three father, Rawls,4 him min leave saw September had left him in 1969 after he leg. the house in his black Oldsmobile around May had stabbed her in the In morning of first. He 9:30 on the March ag- she had had arrested for Ralls going was house gravated deceased’s assault he hit her when daughters’ pick up whiskey of his clothes some bottle. She also testified that left there. He returned petitioner had been had often threatened kill Benjamin shortly Rawls before 10:00. her mother and herself. talking petitioner with the deceased saw brother, Rawls, petitioner’s Donald deceased’s and third man near nights testified that on the two before automobile, the maroon Chevrolet. March his brother shown him a had away in son drive later saw his Rawls gun, said was which his brother had Barbara Howell. Chevrolet with He also said that .32 caliber automatic. son that his returned Rawls said wife had told him that his Ralls that afternoon house around 3:00 Monday, and that his live to see again left around or 7:00 6:00 had told her had said Ralls mother pre- night. Benjamin Rawls also had “get” his wife and that he would both viously police found a .32 he had further Rawls mother-in-law. Donald son’s floor in his caliber on the bullet mother-in- his that Ralls felt testified days first. room before March a few kept him. his from had wife law mother, testi- Rawls, petitioner’s Ada that Ralls Bowens testified Samuel home at about her came fied that son apartment Haven on to his West came morning first. March 5:00 on the gave original briefs no at trial as the Malcolm, dence ex rel. Newsome ed States supplemen- proof. A about information 1974), sub cert. containing tran- tal record Newsome, 42 U.S.L.W.

nom. Lefkowitz script has also been filed. (June 17, spells while his “Ralls” name court, his 4. Petitioner request parties, of the at spell parents “Rawls.” theirs and brother regarding evi- supplemental briefs filed gasoline March 1 between poured and 11:00. 10:30 and 10:30. He into can, asked Ralls him to cash a U.S. his car’s $500 tank from the started the Company Chemical check. Since Ralls car, returned the can. Barbara money, gave him away owed him Bowens Howell then drove and that was about for the check.- left at explained $300 Ralls he last saw of her. Ralls about hiding 11:00. Bowens did not see that he went into he because Ralls, driven car but did recall knew that he would he be-blamed when nothing evening Ralls said about his car break- heard murder on ing running gas. down or out of March first. witnesses contradicted Ralls’ Several February Cook Charles Jimmy account of his whereabouts. worked with Ralls at the Chemical U.S. on testified that he saw Ralls Senior Company, production where Ralls was a 11:00, March 1 between 10:30 and walk- manager. day One he take a saw Ralls away in a direction from Dixwell gun, thought which Cook was an auto- stopped Avenue. Senior his car matic, bag. paper out of a inAlso Feb- car Ralls asked to be driven to his own ruary Burkman, Donna man- the office Avenue, on on street Winchester ager Chemical, told Ralls ride which Barbara Howell lived. night” gun if he had a “last about took three minutes. mother, mother- would have killed his in-law, story, three children. He said To further contradict Ralls’ policeman his on mother-in-law interfered with from Haven who was West marriage. February night murder, duty After the March 28 testified on pay- complaints 2 and found two there no about Burkman had been in advance a disabled of the Dunkin’ roll checks made out to Ralls car front shop. employee checks, Donut An arrived and five well as who $80 blank morning missing shop early cash, of- at the donut petty from the were check of March 1 testified that car checks was the he saw no fice. One of these parked where Ralls said he had left Bowens cashed. manager Likewise, car. of the car- on the afternoon Ralls was arrested next no wash door testified that he saw incident to arrest March A search parked morning. car tion, In addi- there that U. the the found five checks taken from two the attendants who were work- giv- being Company. After S. Chemical gas ing at the said station where Ralls being warnings the Miranda and en stopped, he and had Barbara Howell tes- booked, that on Sat- Ralls told detectives they tified that knew not Ralls and had February urday evening, 28, his car anyone morning him sold any else that of a Donut broke down in front Dunkin’ gasoline gas Finally, in a can. no Hitchhiking, Shop he in Haven. West gas can was in found Barbara Howell’s by man. an unknown was driven home car. morning walk to he started to next presented no in de- Ralls evidence house, but was his mother-in-law’s fense. Jimmy up picked driven there and Thus, surprising that it is not to find Senior, drove a Barbara Howell friend. in- no serious claim is made that Ralls is they at about arrived him home where Indeed, no such claim could be nocent. ear her about He had told 9:45. running every points as made circumstance gas to take and asked her out of him the Barbara Howell. killer of At- They stopped at an it. first him to grounds any event, upon gas In the two of Good- on the corner lantic station Judge the where which Blumenfeld Avenue and Shelton rich Street being fall consti- gas in her car. short of errors of that writ can was he filled They 10:15 tutional dimension.5 ear between at his arrived however, below, appeal, by judge, are on hindered as we the the district In fairness probably inexcusable refusal of the brief this was state to he noted that it be ground upon by process. deprived the Ralls of due There first relied introducing allegedly improper legitimate purpose the was was district court showing had a of the fact that Ralls the card: how the witness admission fingerprint prior in This occurred identified the the record. Chevro- criminal po- jury during let. The was crimes examination of not told what the supposed expert fingerprint was testified Ralls to have committed who lice print previously carefully compared ma- and was instructed the found judge. Finally, fingerprint card the trial whatever with a roon Chevrolet prejudicial all the in effect the admission of central of Ralls file bureau fingerprint card had the in was vitiated arrest records Connecticut. criminal testimony, objected to, point judge later cautioned At this trial might prior wife that jury Ralls’ Ralls had been arrested arrest charged it did in 1969 after she had him with a minor matter and have been aggravated then ex- assault. case. The was affect this moved for counsel cused Spencer Texas, mistrial, which was denied. When S.Ct. returned, again judge in- the trial upheld procedure Court a state they take were not to structed them purposes was where told for any prior record into account arrest sentencing under a recidivist statute the file card could have been that the prior defendant, convictions of job application. The card because carefully con- was instructed was admitted into evidence. itself not to victions were be determin- used guilt ing the the defend- innocence of The district court concluded Spencer ant. What Court said fingerprint was card admission of the applies here as well: three-part prejudicial error under implying say To admission of materials United States Constitution test for infringed type prior simply defendant has a criminal because this prejudicial of evidence record which we announced limiting Harrington, inadequate to vi- instructions prejudicial 1973), effects, make tiate and so Ralls’ due violated complex process right into inroads code as- entire a fair trial. Even evidentiary law, suming correctly of state criminal the district court large Harrington, standard, applied would threaten other areas jurisprudence. problem with its conclusion is that Har- appeals ers ed, rington, over the an exercising as well as instance admission of evidence a federal court of other cases supervisory pow- cit- ceeded on Process Clause ^[*] Cases in this Court have -X- premise guarantees the funda- ^[*] -X- long pro- the Due -x- goes in a crim- saying mental elements of fairness district courts. It without prisoner trial. . . But it has never petitions inal . that habeas thought that establish very cases question been the is a different one—(cid:127) rule-making organ for petitioner’s as a right this Court the to a fair whether promulgation rules of guaranteed by the of state trial as the due procedure. criminal e.g., See, clause was violated. Jones v. (6th Haskins, 459 F.2d 479 562, 563-564, 87 S.Ct. 653-654. ground the dis- on which Here The second the record not that does show al- fingerprint court the writ was trict the admission of card apply Procedure, ease eral of Civil on the merits. The state claims that Rules clearly corpus proceedings, argue allow to habeas merits of ease would some- pleaded alternative. constitute defenses to be how waiver of its claim that 8(e)(2). Thus, could this case should not be heard because of F.R.Civ.P. waiving argued the here without failure have merits exhaust remedies. This claim. stand overlooks the fact that the Fed- his exhaustion imposed for imprisonment be should jury by trial life leged coercion degree The murder. forty-five of first a conviction two hours judge. About affirmatively and ten judge began answered jury its deliber- after minutes brought jury in a ver- later the minutes in be- judge them called ations, guilty in the second of murder The (5:00 p.m.). dict hour cause degree. trying he was that judge them told like to hurry them, that would he that The court concluded district thought or they sandwiches that if supplemental know the trial instructions necessary. He be ju- dinner would judge unconstitutionally compelled a full you to leave said, allow “I cannot voting then minority position to rors for a You of verdict. sort I have some before acquiesce majority’s position. somebody got readily see, sick if p. could The court first focused on the 5:00 m. a mis- overnight, have to declare I would judge jury where told the statement to start trial, would have this case they that had to reach a verdict. impossi- again. be an It would all over court relied Court’s bility.” if sandwiches He then asked opinion brief v. United Jenkins juror enough. that A told him would be States, S.Ct. probably quite be- while it where a conviction they came in with a verdict. fore ground was reversed on the the dis- telling judge jury judge trict coerced a Later, the trial called at 8:07 they following them that had to a verdict. jury reach in- and delivered the again But it should be noted once struction : concerning Jenkins was a case a federal you having I sense that must be a lit- appellate supervising court lower difficulty reaching your tle verdict. Furthermore, judge courts. the district However, you as I have told time and initially jury had the case again, your verdict be unani- must simple awas one and should not detain true, course, mous. It that a long. them After two hours the juror agrees, verdict to which each saying sent back a note it was got to be own conclusion and hopelessly deadlocked. district acquiescence the mere in or the judge going then said that he was not conclusions of his fellows. accept that and that had to juror That does not mean that each reach a decision. Jenkins v. United pursue his own deliberations States, U.S.App.D.C. 330 F.2d regard with no for the (1964) (Wright, J., n. 2& dis- arguments and conclusions of his fel- senting). lows, having reached a conclu- The situation in the instant case was sion, obstinately she should ad- very different. The remarks of the trial here to it without a ef- conscientious judge occurred in in- the course of an validity fort to test the views concerning quiry whether would be jurors. entertained the other necessary jurors. Indeed, to feed the telling you I am not what to do. I judge’s comments can be read as going you am to send back in. Follow telling go they could not theory, you will resolve begun they home once deliberations. yourselves your duty to do and follow Here, Jenkins, judge unlike the trial thoughts jurors whom, of other I gave a further instruction three hours sure, am equally are as wise and have later. heard may the same evidence. You The district court also found that jury room, return to the hope and I it given impermissibly instructions at 8:07 light. has you. shed some Thank voting any jurors coerced minori- About an hour later the ty. judge’s sent charge While the trial did judge question asking they if charge alone de- not follow verbatim in Allen termined penalty whether the death States, 492, 501, v. United 164 U.S. 17

499 154, (1896), being S.Ct. 41 L.Ed. 528 which There no reason whatever to was derived from cases like v. guilt State doubt the defendant, and lit- Smith, (1881), ques 49 any Conn. 376 tle if basis to any believe that rul- ings tion before is not what the federal us of the state questions court raise do, courts should rather due what such constitutional jus- dimension as to process requires tify do. The state courts to federal scrutiny court and correc- jurors judge clearly tion, here the district court should have dis- juror that each must reach his own con petition. missed the just acquiesce clusion and not At the same time pointed it should be majority’s judge’s verdict. The trial out guilt that in case where comment follow the open to question6 serious and where thoughts signifi jurors of other is claims of constitutional dimension find a cantly prejudicial the Allen more than basis in the record, the federal district charge minority jurors instruction that court need years not stand while the See, opinions. should reconsider their pass and appellate process state g., Jennings, e. 471 F.2d v. speed makes the spectac- of a snail seem 1310, Cir.), denied, (2d 1313-1314 cert. comparison. ular least, At the due (1973); 411 U.S. 935 v. United States process require the defendants Kenner, 780, 354 F.2d Cir. who must endure such an be ad- 1965), denied, 958, cert. 383 U.S. 86 S. bail, mitted they serving lest end 1223, (1966). Ct. 301 all most of their sentence before the charge conclusion, such a seems propriety of the conviction been de- province me to be well within termined. upon pass in accordance state courts to We understand that the Connecticut practice in with state situations where practice making finding is un- now agree. unable to As seems der Apparently, careful review. may provide convictions states for practice has been found to be a time- by less than unanimous criminal cases consuming expensive altogether verdict, Louisiana, Johnson v. 406 U.S. practice puts archaic which an unneces- 1620, L.Ed.2d 152 S.Ct. sary burden on counsel and the trial Apodaca Oregon, (1972); v. 406 U.S. judge, delay. and results in inordinate 32 L.Ed.2d 92 S.Ct. course, Of is not for the federal to follow that the it would seem practice. courts to devise rules for state reached, unanimity whereby in- is means play part But if such rules in the deni- cluding supplemental matter as a rights, al of constitutional the fact that judged by the stand- charge, is not to be their use is tolerated would be no excuse apply in federal criminal we ards which delays might substantially which di- unanimity is a constitution- trials where nullify rights. minish or due judge requirement. the district al Thus reasons, For the above the order of treading territory is bet- the district court should be reversed our ter left decision brethren petition. with directions to dismiss the courts. state prisoner has ment claims when the not had suggest colorable that a I do not mean to opportunity a fair raise the claims in the necessary prerequi- is a claim of innocence adjudicated. concerning courts to have them corpus every case habeas site Bustamonte, supra, 412 Friendly See Schneckloth prisoner, Judge in his arti- a state 2041; Cardwell exceptions S.Ct. carefully which a cle delineates Lewis, L.Ed. 94 S.Ct. U.Chi. is not needed. claim of innocence result) concurring (Powell, J., exceptions 2d 325 are L.Rev. at 151-53. Within provide the did not claims the state did not re- Here the claims are that Ralls guarantees type of trial the Constitution ceive the kind of trial the Constitution procedure al- has not claims that above, requires but, demonstrated Likewise, Mr. Justice lowed be raised. not so. habeas federal Powell would allow prisoner’s Amend- Fourth aof review

Case Details

Case Name: John Wesley Ralls v. John R. Manson, Commissioner of Correction of the State of Connecticut

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Jul 5, 1974

Citation: 503 F.2d 491

Docket Number: 1177, Docket 74-1682

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.