*1 KAUFMAN v. UNITED STATES. Argued 53.
No. November 1968. Decided March 1969. *2 Court, 391 Jacob, by appointment R. Bruce for petitioner. briefs cause and filed argued the Jr., the cause for the United Martin, argued John S. Gris- General were Solicitor the brief States. On Vinson, Beatrice wold, Attorney General Assistant Rosenberg. opinion of the delivered Brennan Justice
Mr. Court. claim of a is whether the
The here question on evidence obtained prisoner that he was convicted cognizable search and seizure is unconstitutional an 2255.1 § under S. C. proceeding a post-conviction provisions of S. C. are: pertinent 1 The 17. §2255 prisoner custody Act under sentence a court established “A ground claiming upon Congress right be released imposed in or violation of the Constitution the sentence was jurisdiction States, or that the was laws of the United court without impose sentence, or was in excess of the such that the sentence by law, subject authorized or is otherwise to collateral maximum may imposed vacate, attack, court which move the sentence or correct the sentence. set aside any “A such relief be made at time. motion for files the motion and the and records of the case conclu- “Unless sively prisoner relief, is entitled to no court shall show that upon attorney, notice thereof to served the United States cause grant prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make respect findings conclusions of law with thereto. If the of fact and imposed . was not authorized court finds that the . . sentence law attack, open to or or otherwise that there has been such infringement rights prisoner the constitutional denial and convicted in the District Petitioner was tried charges for the Eastern District of Missouri on Court federally savings robbery of a insured and loan armed petitioner’s only At trial, association. defense insanity. Appeals Eighth Court of for the Cir- on petitioner’s direct affirmed the conviction. cuit, appeal, v. United 2d 408 (1965). F. Kaufman post-conviction proceeding then filed this Petitioner a claim finding under included sanity upon the improper was based admission of un lawfully evidentiary seized evidence.2 After an hearing, Judge, presided petitioner’s the District who had also opinion. relief with As trial, respects denied written *3 the claim of unlawful search seizure, opinion and states that: “The record not does substantiate this claim. any In assigned this matter was as event, not error on appeal Kaufman’s from conviction and is not available ground as a for collateral attack on the instant 2255 § motion.” Supp. 484, (1967). 268 F. 487 Petitioner’s applications to the District Court and the Court of Appeals Eighth for the Circuit for appeal leave to pauperis were denied. forma treat
We the actions the District Court and the of Appeals Court as grounded consistently the view judgment as attack, to render vulnerable to collateral the court judgment shall vacate and set discharge and aside shall prisoner or grant him resentence a new trial or correct may appear appropriate. sentence as
“A court entertain and such determine motion re- without quiring production prisoner hearing. at the sentencing
“The court required shall not be to a entertain second or successive prisoner.” motion similar relief on behalf of the same 2 pro se motion. proceeding by Petitioner initiated 2255 a § only presented claim was denial of effective assistance counsel. Judge hearing, The District appointed ordered to counsel petitioner. supplemental assist presenting Counsel filed motion claims, two petitioner’s additional one of which was that search of illegal. automobile was
220 of unlawful Appeals that claims Court by the
followed pre be matters to proper “are not seizure search but § 2255 vacate sentence under a motion to sented from the con by appeal only properly presented can 3 a con appeals have indicated courts Other viction.” 3 States, (1963); also 673, see v. United 311 F. 2d 675 Warren Peters United (1965); v. States, Springer United 2d 950 340 F. v. States, 2d v. United (1963); 340 F. States, Gendron 2d 312 F. 481 (C. 2d Re, 2d A. United States v. 372 F. 641 (1965). Accord: 601 Jenkins, (C. A. 3d Cir. States v. F. 2d 193 1967); United Cir. States, (C. 2d A. 5th Cir. 1960); Armstead v. United 318 F. (C. States, 6th Cir. v. United 2d 55 A. 1963); Eisner 351 F. (C. States, v. United F. A. 7th Cir. 1965); De Welles 2d 67 (C. 2d A. 9th Cir. 1967); Williams 307 F. 1962). statement the District Court’s have overlooked We assigned appeal as on Kaufman’s “this was not error matter any appeal suggests . .” event failure
from conviction . remedy sug- renders the unavailable. This conviction gestion contrary failure to a direct to our decisions that take post-conviction deprive a appeal from conviction does not claims; adjudicate power the merits of constitutional court of question is whether the case is one in which refusal rather Fay Noia, power appropriate. would be See exercise that Henry Mississippi, (1963); 379 U. S. 438-440 (1965). 451-452 certainly by-pass”
This is not case where there was a “deliberate objected appeal. had Appointed counsel trial a direct *4 grounds of evidence on of unlawful search the admission certain newly appellate assign seizure, appointed did not but counsel argument in his brief or of as error either on oral admission argument however, appeal. appeal, peti- oral of After appellate asking counsel him to submit to tioner wrote a letter illegal Appeals a claim of search the Court of and seizure of items petitioner’s Counsel forwarded letter to the from automobile. petitioner’s Appeals who notified counsel Clerk of the Court given panel had been which had heard and was letter appeal. opinion Appeals considering the The of the Court of affirming appear petitioner’s pass conviction does not on the search-and-seizure claim.
221 tra-ry In light view.4 of the importance of the issue in granted administration of 2255 § we certiorari. 390 1002 (1968). We reverse. authority of the federal courts issue the writ corpus incorporated habeas in very grant first of federal court jurisdiction Judiciary made Act of 1789, 1 20, 14,§ c. 81, Stat. with the limiting pro- vision that “writs habeas shall in corpus no case extend to prisoners in gaol, unless where they custody, are in under or by colour of the authority of the United States . . .”. Common-law principles initially deter- scope mined the Bollman, parte writ. Ex Cranch (1807). 93-94 In however, the writ was extended to state prisoners, and its ex- scope was panded to relief, authorize both as to state in prisoners, “all any person cases where re- may be strained his or liberty her violation the constitu- tion, any treaty or of or law of the . . .” United States . Act February 5, 1867, 28, 1, c. Stat. 385.
Section 2255 revised
procedure
which federal
prisoners are to seek such
any
relief but
not in
respect
did
scope
cut back the
of the writ. The section was included
in the 1948 revision of the Judicial
“at
Code
the instance
of the Judicial Conference
the United
to meet
[of
States]
practical difficulties that had arisen in administering
jurisdiction
habeas
of the federal courts.
history
Nowhere
any
of Section
do
we find
purpose to impinge upon prisoners’ rights of collateral
upon
attack
their convictions.
contrary,
On the
the sole
purpose
towas minimize the difficulties
encountered
corpus hearings by affording
rights
the same
another and more
jorum,”
convenient
United States v.
Sutton,
United States (C.
1963);
Hayman,
219
205,
342
S.U.
provide
in the
simply
intended
legislation was
“the
with
remedy exactly commensurate
court a
sentencing
been available
previously
which had
prisoner was
where the
district
corpus in the court
States,
427
United
Hill
368 U. S.
confined.”
v.
respecting
to our decisions
we
refer
(1962). Thus,
remedy
deciding
federal habeas
availability
in this case.
presented
the question
Noia,
(1963)
409
Fay
v.
U.
noted in
372
S.
We
. . makes
of decisions of this Court
.
course
that “[t]he
law,
contrary to our fundamental
that restraints
plain
challenged on federal habeas
Constitution, may be
of a
imposed pursuant
the conviction
though
even
have
jurisdiction.”6 We
competent
court
claims
recognition
the same
given
g.,
Hayman,
e. United States
proceedings. See,
v.
§ 2255
States,
United
1 (1963);
supra; Sanders v.
373
U. S.
(1956). The
Jordan v.
352 U.
904
S.
cognizance
have
under
courts of
which
denied
appeals
search-and-seizure
have
2255 to unconstitutional
claims
supporting
apparent
reasons
their
generally supplied
of our
Rather,
from this course
decisions.
departure
variously ex
statement,
have made the bald
these courts
5
Among
problems
administrative
under habeas
the serious
practice
in the case of federal
was that created
requirement
brought
in the district of confine
action
readily
ment,
the records
the case were often not
available.
where
changed
require
application
2255
this to
an
motion filed
Section
Hayman,
United States v.
sentencing
342 U. S.
in the
court. See
(1952).
205, 212-219
6
Wilson,
parte Lange,
parte
Ex
g.,
e.
Ex
(1874);
See,
“The history whole of the writ —its devel- unique opment a construction of the federal courts’ —refutes 7See, g., e. “A motion under 2255 cannot be made the substitute § appeal,”
for States, supra, 3, (C. an Peters v. United n. 482 A. Cir.); provides 8th “Section 2255 for a collateral attack on a judgment appeal alleged conviction and is not for a substitute for trial,” States, supra, errors committed at Eisner v. United (C. 3, Cir.); “Questions n. concerning admissibility A. 6th directly indirectly of evidence obtained aas of an result unlawful can appeal conviction, search be judgment reviewed an from a proceeding,” but cannot be with in a dealt section 2255 v. Williams States, supra, (C. 3, Cir.); long United n. at 367 A. 9th “It has been corpus the law that habeas be will not allowed do appeal, as an service and that so far as are con normally cerned, appeal post-conviction failure will bar resort relief,” (C. Nash United 366, 342 F. 2d A. 5th Cir. 1965). paraphrase These Large, statement in Sunal v. 332 U. S. (1947), corpus that “the writ of habeas will allowed to do appeal,” service an but that statement was made alleged context an nonconstitutional trial error. See Sobell, (C. 1963). States F. 2d 322-323 A. 2d Cir. assimilate their that would powers corpus The appellate review. of courts of
task to by way It different. test on habeas is function independent of original proceeding, civil of an judgments, of review criminal channels normal language of . very allegations. . . gravest writ, the decisions Congress, history in- power of make clear that Court, all There- corpus plenary. on federal habeas quiry fore, applicant for a writ of habeas where an *7 which, him proved, if would entitle alleges facts relief, application which the is the federal court to power try to receive evidence and made has the facts anew.” for deny- suggests another rationale
The Government illegal with prisoners relief to federal ing post-conviction denial of Fourth Amend- claims. The search-and-seizure unreasonable searches protection against ment of a differ- runs, is seizures, argument the Government’s rights denials of other constitutional ent nature from subject held to collateral attack federal we have which of -For unlike claim denial of effective a prisoners. self- privilege against of violation of the or counsel examples, illegal a of search and incrimination, as claim of integrity fact-finding impugn does not seizure inherently challenge unreliable; or evidence as process simply seized evidence is illegally the exclusion rather, generally to Fourth device intended deter prophylactic a by law enforcement officers. This violations Amendment argues, function, adequately the Government deterrent a federal defendant opportunities afforded served exclusionary trial, rule enforce the before so relatively minimal additional deterrence afforded that the remedy would seem to post-conviction justify, by a special circumstances, the collateral release except did who not raise the persons search-and-seizure guilty issue at or on In appeal. trial direct the Govern- sum, sponsors adoption by ment this Court of the rule an- in the majority opinion Appeals nounced Court for the District of in Thornton v. Columbia Circuit F. App. 116, D. C. showing of a (1966), 2d the absence “special pris- circumstances” claim oner that evidence admitted his trial was the fruit of an unconstitutional properly search or seizure is not ground of a collateral attack on his conviction.
The Government concedes its brief that we have rejected already approach respect with to the avail- ability of the corpus remedy federal habeas to state prisoners. rejection premised large part This recognition availability of collateral remedies necessary integrity to insure the proceedings at and before trial where constitutional are rights at stake. Our decisions leave no doubt that the federal remedy extends to state alleging unconstitutionally obtained evidence was admitted them at trial. g., e. See, DeForte, Mancusi v. 392 U. (1968); S. 364 *8 LaVallee, 391 v. U. S. 234 Warden (1968); Carafas Hayden, v. 387 U. see (1967); Henry also Mississippi, (1965). 379 U. S. The Government argues, however, post-conviction that federal relief should not be available to federal prisoners as broad a range cognizable as cases presented by when pris- state Support for proposition oners. this is drawn from the fact that considerations which Noia, this Court, Fay supra, justifications deemed for affording a federal forum g., to prisoners necessity state that federal courts —e. say” respect have “last with to questions of federal inadequacy law, procedures state to raise and preserve claims, federal the concern that judges state unsympathetic federally created rights, constraints on the institutional exercise of this Court’s not convictions —do review state jurisdiction certiorari we are prisoners. Thus, federal respect obtain with already having had prisoner, the federal told position with different court, in federal stands day state than does the to federal collateral regard remedies are unable to Conceding distinction, we prisoner. completely us to why restrict, it should lead understand search- prisoners illegal federal with severely, or access remedies, while claims to federal collateral and-seizure prisoners. state similar restriction on access placing no in a federal rights to assert federal opportunity The justification not for clearly forum is sole no need otherwise there would be post-conviction relief; all. prisoners relief to federal at to make such available rests more provision of federal collateral remedies upon pro- fundamentally recognition adequate relating to the criminal rights tection of a process continuing availability requires trial for less for federal mechanism relief. This true prisoners. than it is for state Sain, we set supra, 313, 318, In Townsend v. down the circumstances under which federal court including, course, review constitutional must claims-— presented of illegal claims search and state seizure — prisoners:
“If (1) dispute merits factual were not (2) resolved the state the state hearing; fairly supported by factual determination is whole; (3) fact-finding procedure record as a employed by adequate the state court was not (4) afford a full and fair hearing; there is a sub- allegation newly evidence; stantial discovered (5) developed the material facts were not adequately (6) the state-court hearing; any reason *9 appears it the state trier of did fact not afford applicant a fair the full and hearing. fact
227 “In all other where in cases the material facts are dispute, the in holding hearing of such a discretion of the district judge.” these, duty Of of only the federal habeas court procedure” (3) scrutinize “the fact-finding under does apply the case of prisoner; a federal federal fact- finding procedures are hypothesis adequate to assure of the integrity underlying rights. Thus, when a for request § relief under 2255 asserts a claim of unconstitutional search and seizure which was tested by suppress a motion to or before trial under Rule 41 (e), § Fed. Crim. Proc. 2255 court need not stop procedure review the adequacy established respect, that Rule. In respect only, this prisoner position federal does differ from prisoner. that of perceive the state We no differences between the situations state and federal allegations which should make of the other circumstances Townsend Sain less subject listed scrutiny by a § 2255 court.8
8 appellate a trial Where or court has determined the federal prisoner’s claim, may proper discretion case be exercised grant hearing. provides hearing Section § conclusively motion and the files and records of the case “[u]nless prisoner show that the is entitled to no relief . . . In Sanders v. States, (1963), governing United 1U. S. we announced standards hearing the determination whether a should be ordered in the case Similarly, a successive motion under 2255. where the trial § “say” appellate prisoner’s claim, may had court has on a federal it open to the 2255 court to determine that on the basis of the motion, files, records, prisoner “the entitled to relief.” Thornton v. App. See 114, 125, 125 U. S. D. C. (1966) 822, (dissenting opinion F. 2d Wright, J.). Furthermore, proper deny court in a case relief §2255 prisoner deliberately to a federal bypassed orderly who has procedures provided way at or before trial and appeal g., suppress motion to under Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. —e. (e) or appeal App. (b). Fay Noia, under Fed. Rule Proc. 4 supra, Henry 438; Mississippi, n. supra, n. at 451-452. *10 Thornton and court in adopted by
The approach in finality of here exalts the value upon us pressed of of the interest at judgments expense criminal of constitutional prisoner vindication each finality runs of regard for benefits rights. Such of our of precepts system to the most basic contrary Noia, Fay supra, a relief. In post-conviction con- prisoner who claimed that his involving a state case notions coerced, we said that “conventional fession was permitted in criminal cannot be litigation finality of federal that federal constitu- policy defeat the manifest liberty not be denied rights personal of shall tional for plenary federal opportunity the fullest without expressed The review.” same view was judicial a States, supra, involving case Sanders v. “ of finality notions of prisoner: [conventional is place liberty have no life or at stake where litigation alleged.” of infringement rights and constitutional of state philosophy recognition This inheres our post-conviction illegal claims search prisoners’ in finality interest is the same with Plainly the seizure. prisoners. regard both federal and state With regard to protection determined that the full Congress has both, availability rights requires of their constitutional The right mechanism for collateral attack. then is federal forum but to full and fair con- merely of constitutional claims. Federal are sideration entitled to such consideration than are state no less There is reason to treat federal trial errors prisoners. guarantees destructive than state as less give greater preclusive pro- nor to effect to errors, trial by federal defendants than defaults to similar cedural To hold state defendants. otherwise would defaults and erroneous view of an anomalous federal-state reflect relations. with the agree suggestion
We cannot Mr. Justice weight that the to be dissent accorded the bene- Black’s finality fits of as controlling in the context of post- conviction relief as in the context retroactive relief. post-conviction availability relief signifi- serves cantly secure the integrity proceedings at before appeal. trial No performed by such service is *11 extending rights retroactively. Thus, relief, unlike relief, present retroactive contributes to the vital- ity of all constitutional rights they whether or not bear on process. the of integrity the fact-finding
More fundamentally, the of logic his dissent cannot be limited to the of availability post-conviction It relief. into brings question the of propriety exclusionary rule application itself. The of that not made rule is to turn on the existence of a of possibility innocence; rather, exclusion of illegally obtained evidence is deemed necessary protect to of right citizens, merely all on trial, citizen to be secure unreasonable searches and seizures. As we said Miller v. United 357 U. S. 313 (1958): duly
“We are of mindful society reliance that place must for achieving law upon and order enforcing of agencies the criminal law. But insist- ence on observance law officers traditional procedural fair requirements is, from long point view, best calculated contribute that end. particular in a However much case upon insistence may appear such rules as a technicality that inures to the benefit of guilty person, the history of the proves law criminal that tolerance of short-cut meth- impairs ods in law enforcement its enduring effec- . Every tiveness. . . householder, the good and the bad, guilty and the innocent, is entitled to the protection designed secure the common interest against unlawful invasion the house.” Finally, on petitioner’s reliance Mr. Justice Black’s participation the robbery concession misplaced. petitioner’s light is irrelevant That concession defense, insanity. Surely based on defense at trial prejudiced by defense, cannot any than other any more seized evidence. unconstitutionally admission of majority in the rule announced reject We thus Judge adopt reasoning in Thornton and opinion D. App. C., S. Wright’s case, U. dissent at 831: 2d, 368 F. fed- way in the a difference undoubtedly
“There is applications post-conviction courts should treat eral Allen, Brown prisoners. by state and of Mr. 443, 508], (opinion 73 Ct. U. S. S. [344 C. 2241 as interprets Frankfurter), Justice say’ 'last with have the federal courts to requiring pris- questions of federal law. Federal respect had relief often have applying oners for collateral by federal passed claims their constitutional *12 the Brown v. Allen appeal, at trial or on so courts inapposite. relitigation for federal court rationale for provides limiting no But this difference basis upon obtain may which federal grounds relief, separate for a set of formulating or claim prisoner’s to determine when a federal rules adjudicated. Where a federal adequately has been ‘say’ has had a on a federal appellate trial or court col- prisoner’s there be need for claim, if the or But what federal trial relitigation. lateral nothing because the issue was appellate court said if ‘say’ it is whether the not raised? What unclear if new been on the merits? What law has or to the relating facts uncovered constitu- made if appeal? claim since trial and What tional appellate rulings or court based its the trial a fact made after not ‘full and findings hearing meaning Sain, of Townsend v. fair’ within (1963)? Ed. 2d 293, 83 Ct. L. problems All these are common to state and federal prisoners, finality operates and the equally interest in in both situations. These problems raise, not the relitigation issue whether is necessary, but whether litigation adequate one has been afforded. It would indeed, especially light anomalous of the in- in maintaining good terest federal-state relations, if not precluding defaults one adequate federal re- view for the constitutional pris- claims state precluded oners such review for federal prisoners, if rendering adjudications defects state court inadequate similarly did not affect federal court adjudications.”
We therefore hold a claim of unconstitutional search and cognizable seizure is in a proceeding. § 2255 Appeals order of Court of is reversed and the case is proceedings remanded further consistent with opinion.
It is so ordered. Mr. Justice Marshall part took no in the considera- tion or decision of this case. Black,
Mr. Justice dissenting. Petitioner Kaufman was convicted of robbing fed- erally savings insured and loan association while armed with a pistol. Part the evidence used him awas some revolver, of the stolen traveler’s checks, a money-order receipt, traffic summons, gaso- *13 receipts. During line the trial petitioner’s counsel con- petitioner ceded that had committed the robbery but he responsible contended was not for the crime because he was mentally ill time. An appeal from his rejected by conviction was the Court of Appeals, 350 F. (C. 408 8th 1965), 2d A. Cir. and we denied certiorari, 383 (1966). U. 951 Three S. months later —after the considered generally is what had become
decision present District Court Federal “final” —he filed his sen- 2255, asking that § under 28 S. C. motion U. that others, among ground, on the tence be vacated suppressing error not had committed court trial been the articles had him because the evidence Despite the and seizure. unlawful search by obtained an pro- in this in his trial or never, he either that has fact actually physically com- he had not ceeding, asserted that the fact that despite and robbery pistol, awith mitted the clearly shows, along with the evidence plainly reliable he insane, was not the Court trial, that other evidence collaterally he holding that can case, is reversing I it become final. dissent. after had judgment attack the every my that not conviction My rests on belief dissent right denial of a constitutional part on a based proceedings § or 2255 to attack subject become final. This conclusion is has after conviction clearly sug- which language § supported claim is intended to gests every not constitutional that as And, relief.1 this Court has collateral basis Noia, Fay corpus, with reference to habeas said implicit statutory in the command “Discretion 'dispose . . of the as judge . matter law that C. 2243 . U. S. . . .” justice require,' 438. factor that important course one would relate to Of should the conviction be vulnerable collateral whether judgment was “If the court finds rendered without jurisdiction, imposed the sentence authorized law open attack, or or otherwise to collateral there has been such rights infringement prisoner of the a denial or judgment attack, vulnerable as to render the court judgment discharge pris aside and shall shall vacate set grant a him or new trial or or resentence correct the oner sentence appropriate.” appear (Emphasis C. as §2255. supplied.) *14 possibility applicant’s
attack is the
innocence.
illustration,
For
few
think that
justice requires
would
allegations
release
whose
person
clearly show that
guilty
he was
of the crime of
he had
which
been convicted.
agree
I
with
Court’s
scope
conclusion that
collateral
is substantially
attack
same in
challenges
habeas
cases which involve
to state
as it is
convictions,
§in 2255 cases which involve chal-
lenges to federal convictions. The crucial question, how-
ever,
types
is whether certain
such
a claim
claims,
as
keep
out relevant and trustworthy evidence because
an
the result of
unconstitutional
search
seizure,
and
normally
open
should
in these collateral proceedings.
fully
This question
carefully
and
considered
Court of
for the
Appeals
District
Columbia Circuit in
Thornton App.
D.
C.
“[Generally a claim a federal prisoner that evi- dence admitted at trial was fruit an unconstitutional search or is properly seizure ground aof collateral attack on his conviction. As further noted below, this rule is subject to an exception special circumstances ....
“Many opinions declare that collateral attack, as corpus, is available to correct the denial of a right. constitutional general This rule but it is not an absolute. . . .
“The are called on courts provide evolve and pro- cedures remedies are effective to vindicate rights. However, where effective pro- cedures are available in the direct proceeding, there C., App. 116-118, 2 125 D. 2d, 368 F. at 824-826. additional, an provide imperative *15 exploration unturned, when leaving no stone review, of the behest individual justice avenues of of all administration may impair judicial petitioners litigation criminal by making courts, as the federal of the federal diverting resources interminable, and judiciary.” country judg- formerly rule in this that
It was collateral attack that impervious to ments were so conviction collaterally attack his could defendant Government had admitted his innocence. even after the might seem obviously a harsh and what rule, That of course now people one, to most an indefensible has Fay finally put rest in v. It was been abandoned. Noia, It element of (1963). 372 391 I should probable possible innocence that think determining after given weight judgment whether appeal open conviction and affirmance should be great historic role of the writ attack, reliability been to insure the of habeas has Noia, Fay process.3 In guilt-determining v. Noia felony and his two codefendants had been convicted York court and murder New state each had been imprisonment. to life The sentenced sole evidence each defendant was his confession. While his did appealed, not, codefendants Noia for fear if he secured a reversal and was reconvicted at a second trial, he would be sentenced death. The confessions were subsequently one codefendant found the Court for the Circuit Appeals Second to have been coerced which that court practices described as “satanic.” ex rel. Caminito Murphy, United States 222 F. 2d 698, Supreme Court, Mishkin, The See Term —Foreword: The Writ, High Court, Great and the The Due Process of Time and (1965). 56, Rev. 79-86 Law, 79 Harv. L. (1955). of Noia’s other conviction codefendant Bonino, reversed, People
was also N. 2d Y. N. E. 2d and since there was no than evidence other the coerced they guilty, confessions were the State reprosecute declined apparently they them and were set ex rel. Fay, States Noia free. Supp. See 183 F. n. 6 222, 227, (1960). Noia, however, languished in his though alleged even had prison, confederates been Both the York Federal released. New courts and the District Court to review his ground declined case on the his 1942 to appeal failure made his conviction “final.” He jail despite remained the fact that he “continuously asserted innocence the crime for *16 petition which he been convicted” in his for habeas [had] corpus Transcript and elsewhere. See of Record in No. Term, 1962, p. October 8.
It was under circumstances, these strongly appealing to justice the Court’s sense of what that required, Court held that Noia was entitled to his con- challenge viction though previously even it had become “final.” My Brother Harlan, dissenting, concluded no mat- that ter how appealing circumstances, the one wrongly con- consigned victed must be to slow, the tedious, and road uncertain to whatever relief he might possibly get from Chief the agreed the Executive. On I contrary, Fay Noia with bright as one of in the landmarks the administration of criminal I justice. But not think did then and not think now that laid do it down an inflexible rule the to compelling every prisoner courts release who in collateral alleges proceedings some flaw, regardless nature, regardless its his inno- guilt cence, regardless of the circumstances of the case. in Noia shows, opinion The Court’s from beginning the end, guilt that defendant’s or innocence least one of the vital in considerations whether determining relief should available to a convicted de- emphasized the repeatedly The Court
fendant. confession and was coerced only evidence Noia permitted while the jail he remained in State made it go free. Court clear alleged confederates play a such as these should equitable considerations availability of habeas determining part federal corpus:
“Although jurisdiction hold that we corpus federal courts on habeas is not affected applicant during incurred procedural defaults recognize we a limited proceedings, the state court judge deny federal relief an discretion Discretion applicant circumstances. under certain implicit statutory judge, command that granting hearing after the writ and holding appropriate 'dispose of law and scope, the matter as justice C. and discretion require/ §2243; concept employed by flexible the federal courts developing exhaustion rule. Further- more, habeas has traditionally regarded been governed as by equitable principles.” in its closing paragraph, And Court stressed:
“Today as few indeed is always the number state eventually who win their freedom by corpus. means of Those few who are *17 ultimately persons are society successful whom has for wronged and whom grievously belated liberation enough compensation.” little is it cannot be said of Surely, Kaufman, an admitted armed person that he is robber, a whom “society has grievously and for whom belated wronged liberation is little enough compensation.” 391, 438. 372 U. S. 5Id., at 440-441. Appeals as Court of indicated
Although,
Thornton case,
thought
has been
of
broadly
securing
as a
of
means
redress
the violation
any
it
right,”
Mapp
“constitutional
was true until
Ohio,
every
S. 643 (1961),
that almost
“constitu-
right”
tional
referred to
this sense
a
role
played
central
assuring
be a
the trial would
reliable means
testing guilt.
It
true that
prohibition
is
vigorously
coerced
has been
confessions
enforced even in
of proof
the absence
that the confession itself was unre-
g., Rogers
Richmond,
liable, e.
(1961),
A claim of search and seizure under the Fourth crucially many Amendment different from other con- rights; ordinarily stitutional can in evidence seized way untrustworthy have been rendered the means its seizure and indeed often this evidence alone estab- beyond virtually any lishes shadow aof doubt that A guilty. good defendant a example such case is I Nelson, one which filed dissent Harris v. today, post, p. prisoner 286. The in Harris was convicted on a charge he possession had been in of marihuana, pos- session alone being crime under state law. He later collaterally attacked conviction, alleging that unlawfully marihuana had been seized from his home, he illegal where had been in possession it. He did not evidently allege single could fact that would slightest possibility indicate the that he actually was innocent of the crime charged. Under these circum- implies stances it no disrespect for the importance of recognize the Fourth Amendment the simple propo- sition that treatment search-and-seizure claims should *18 Amendment the Fourth the purpose correspond Appeals said rule. As the Court exclusionary Thornton:6 availability of re- of the rejection
“Our and seizure search of unreasonable for claims view circumstances) is not exceptional absence of (in the significance of for the regard low to a attributable and civilization. in our times Amendment the Fourth Fourth magnitude the contrary, On has constellation Amendment our by well as Congress, as remedies prompted unusual . . the courts. . is a contraction of corollary, however,
“. The . . review in order to enlarging collateral the need vindication of the constitutional effective assure involved.” interests exclusionary provi- unlike rule, of the most purpose Rights, include, Bill of even to does
sions goal insuring guilt- slightest degree, Rather, reliable. as this determining process be Court again, primary the rule one said has has time overriding the deterrence of unconstitutional purpose, As the police. and seizures Court searches said Walker, Linkletter v. S. 618, (1965): U. 636-637 prime purpose its “Mapp had as enforcement of the Fourth Amendment through inclusion of exclusionary rule within its rights. This, it was only was the effective found, deterrent to lawless Indeed, police action. all of the cases since [v. Wolf Colorado, 25 (1949)] requiring the exclu- been illegal sion of evidence have based on the neces- for an deterrent to sity illegal police effective action.” can be purpose How this served broad and un- adopted today rule the Court qualified something App. 2d, F. C., 6 125 D. at 826.
of a inherent in mystery. course, shortcomings Of the system any impossible human make it to eliminate en- tirely illegal all the incentives to conduct an search. It however, suggest would seem rather to that fanciful, these inevitable incentives any would be decreased to significant extent the fact that if a conviction is adequate pro- after obtained, opportunities have been to litigate claims, vided constitutional and if this con- upheld viction is all the reviewing courts, the validity of the search seizure later be in questioned collateral proceeding. the Understandably, Court does not make any such suggestion indeed makes no ef- justify fort to its in result terms of long-recognized purpose exclusionary deterrent rule. The Court simply provides string instead us with a of citations that supposedly settle question, at as least to state con- ante, victions, neglects but the Court to mention not one the cases it cites contains a single intima- tion that the issue before now us was even considered.7 other only justification for the Court’s result that gleaned can be from its opinion is the statement in Thornton “exalts reasoning of of Appeals the Court finality judgments the value of criminal expense at the prisoner interest of each in the vindication of Ante, rights.” constitutional 228. This astonish- ing directly contrary statement to the principles this consistently Court has applied on this as subject, for in Elkins example 364 U.
(1960),
[exclusionary]
where we said: “The
rule is calcu-
to
prevent,
repair.
purpose
lated
not
Its
is to deter—
7 Only
Mancusi
decisions,
DeForte,
one
these
only — per- recognition This it.” same disregard in these vindicated can be prisoner right sonal Court’s cases was stressed this Amendment Fourth Linkletter, say that supra: “We cannot opinion by making the would be advanced purpose [deterrent] prior police The misconduct retrospective. rule corrected and will not be Mapp has already occurred Finally, . . . prisoners involved. by releasing the *20 effects can- homes and of the victims’ privacy ruptured S., late.” 381 too Reparation comes not be restored. at 637. approach to this has consistent adherence
The Court’s “retroactivity” all of the various through continued in Desist today’s including decision cases, post, p. 244, which the Court emphasizes, quot- “ Linkletter, po- that misconduct of ing from the ‘[t]he already and will not be corrected . occurred lice . . has ” releasing prisoners involved,’ the and that “the weapon has exclusionary ‘procedural rule is but that ” guilt.’ It would be hard to more bearing find a holdings in apt summary of this Court’s these “retro- they than the activity” cases statement that “exal[t] finality judgments in criminal expense the value of the prisoner of each of the interest vindication rights.” But since this his constitutional is the course I steer, the Court has chosen to think it would not be that suggest amiss to Court least decide this case principles and seek to on the same achieve a modest consistency. semblance of Instead the adopts Court that offers no discernible in enforcing rule benefits Amendment and insures Fourth that who are undoubtedly guilty will be set free. seemingly becoming is more
It and more difficult to proposition for the acceptance gain punishment, things being equal. other One guilty desirable, attempted in to commentator, who vain dissuade this today’s holding, thought necessary point it Court from to strong public convicting out there is “a interest guilty.”8 day may soon Indeed come when the actually law reviews will be to offer ever-cautious forced suggested contention, recently timid and uncertain thought satirically, socially that “crime undesir- governmental its control able, objective’ a 'valid to ”9 is 'rationally which the criminal law related.’ I agree rule, cannot to it may however technical seem, that leads to these I would any results. not let criminal conviction become invulnerable to collateral remaining attack where there is left probability possibility that constitutional commands related to the integrity fact-finding process have been violated. society In perform such situations has failed its obli- gation prove beyond a reasonable doubt defendant But it committed the crime. a dif- quite thing permit ferent collateral attack on a conviction according after a trial due process when the defendant *21 clearly by proof and is, guilty his own admission, charged. the crime may, There as the Court course, the Thornton case, be some in Appeals held cir- special in cumstances which allowance of a Fourth Amendment claim in a collateral proceeding justified would be terms of applicable the relevant and prin- constitutional ciples. of the Some situations possibly falling have category been enumerated and examined by others,10 and are there circumstances alleged here that lead might
8 Amsterdam, Search, Seizure, and Comment, Section 2255: A 112 378, (1964). U. Pa. L. Rev. 389 9 (parody ed.) (March L. 10, 1966). 79 Harv. Rev. 12 States, supra; Thornton v. United supra, Amsterdam, n. at 391-392, n. 60. does case.11 But Court disposition
to such a of this I there- this narrow and judgment ground, its on rest I do how- attempt pass contend, it. fore do not refusing right the court below was ever, that today. announcing rule this Court is follow broad that In collateral attacks whether always that the con- require I would proceedings, § kind claim defendant raise the of constitutional victed guilt. his This doubt on that casts some shadow attack collat- permitted his conviction defendant erally although he conceded the trial does not savings he and loan asso- deny now that had robbed the although absolutely evidence makes clear ciation and doing. guilt being knew what Thus, that he he he have a surely right does not certain, agree I with get possibly a new trial. cannot the Court. Justice whom Mr. Justice Harlan, Stewart Mr. joins, dissenting. in much Brother Black’s my opinion, concur
I agree with his conclusion that C. 2255 should alleg- be available to the admission of evidence contest edly only seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment under limited and special sug- circumstances sort Thornton gested App. 125 U. S. (1966). D. must, C. F. 2d 822 I dis- however, ante, g., e. myself any see, associate from implications, 232-233, 234-236, availability of this collateral remedy petitioner’s aon that he was in fact turns assertion substantiality or on the an innocent, allegation. of such I appropriate think it to add the main roots my situation which Brother Black rightly so allegations suggest unjusti Petitioner’s he have been fiably *22 in his frustrated efforts to raise the issue search-and-seizure ante, appeal opinion, from his conviction. direct See the Court’s 3. n. are to found in the Court’s decisions inveighs Noia, Sain, Fay Townsend v. (1963), U. S. 293 opened gates which have wide the (1963), S. to collateral re-examination both state and federal criminal Be may, present convictions. that as it opportunity case offers an to narrow entrance in a fair practicable rejecting manner. In the oppor once again* imposes the Court this Term tunity, bur the judiciary society den on and on which results large, legitimate petitioner nothing benefit to the and does to serve the interests of justice.
I therefore from opinion dissent of the Court. California, (1969). my dissent in Gardner *See