Richard G. Riser v. Harley O. Teets, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin
253 F.2d 844
9th Cir.
1958
Check Treatment

*1 By One other factor should noted. be Federal on Claims Act and was not Tort Act, provisions February 20, the venue 1955. 1402(b), civil actions on U.S.C.A. § I would reverse the order of the Dis- against United claim States tort “ pro- trict Court and remand for further * * * only may prosecuted be ceedings. judicial plaintiff district where the or omission resides or wherein act

complained there is of occurred.” Since territory where in the no district brought, see 28 U.S. an action be 1346(b), practical is to effect C.A. § against government for suits

restrict territory arising trust claims RISER, Appellant, Richard G. prosecuted by those residents United States. Harley TEETS, O. Warden of the Califor- Pulling together, is it these threads Quentin, nia State Prison at San apparent as acts the United States Appellee. although sovereign theo- in the area No. 15639. elsewhere, retically sovereignty lies Appeals United States Court of closely in with is tied the administration Ninth Circuit. territo- the administration of overseas March certainly possessions, which are ries and “foreign countries,”2 insofar Rehearing April 22, 1958. Denied presently to be law are advised the we concepts general applied is tort in-

veloped and courts United States territory because into the troduced control, as a United States

practical restricted matter are actions who, residents United States ordinarily apparent, quite it is coun- of this islands in the try’s territory. interest the trust Congress intended do think through injured residents

United States negligence in an States of the United and administered so controlled area are and whose claims

the United States general law tort United States based legislative ma- to the be remitted should my opinion,

chinery private In bills. “foreign coun-

Kwajalein not now is Congress term in the used the

try” as pos- nationals, people or 2. § territories citizens U.S.C.A. of our country country, although, rights of this ex- has full citizens are sessions cept occupation use, control, Is- it and Swains does American Samoa Oppenheim, people land, nationals. 8 U.S. not “own” the area. See 1 are whose (8th (38), 1101(a) (29), 1101(a) 1955). Law International Ed. It §§ C..A. occupies special clear, however, Congress Zone intended The Canal respects analogous apply Tort Federal Claims Act is in some status jurisdiction territory although expressly extended the trust try closely permanently tied such actions to the Canal and more Zone. 1346(b). people Its are not U.S.O.A. States. *2 Judge.

HEALY, Circuit Appellant was tried and convicted California murder two people man his wife—and was —a His was an sentenced death. defense statute, alibi. Pen. Pursuant a state Code, 1239(b) an auto- he was accorded appeal matic California Judge, Pope, dissented. Circuit Court, affirmed con- tribunal People Riser, viction. Cal.2d denied, 305 P.2d 15. Certiorari was L.Ed.2d appellant petitioned Thereafter corpus, below for the writ habeas as- serting proc- had been denied due equal protection ess of law and the (Judge the laws. The district court Murphy sitting) staying issued an order appellant’s disposi- execution until final petition; tion could be made of the hearing application after a for writ was denied. The matter is now be- appeal. fore this court on The evidence in case is out in set detail in the California court’s exhaustive appeal, on the automatic and no more of will here be touched than understanding is essential to an points raised. appellant

Prior the trial counsel for had asked there be turned over to authorities, impeachment them the for purposes, copies allegedly of statements eyewitnesses made ing, two the kill- describing murderer. These re- quests judge. were denied the trial production demands for Other along evidence during same line were made course of the trial and were denied. The State held rulings constituted error. How- ever, decided that the error was not prejudicial in that there was no reason- Francisco, Cal., George Davis, San T. probability able would have Cal., Fairfax, Shapiro, for Carl B. reached a different had the de- pellant. been allowed obtain fendant and intro- Brown, Atty. Gen., duce the statements in Clar- evidence. Edmund G. Atty. Gen., Linn, Arlo E. A. Asst. ence holding lay basis in the fact Atty. Gen., Smith, Deputy of Cali- fingerprints appellant were found fornia, appellee. glass on a bottle on a at the bar HEALY, POPE, the murders were Cir- where ORR committed. Al- Before finding so, Judges type of certain cuit hand- question properly victims he was whether cast bodies bullets strongly appellant as shoot point identified as the man who did the was held to ing. evidence,” principal question slayer. “Fingerprint said This was the *3 strongest jury. court, of The Cali evidence determination the the the “is ordinarily identity, alone fornia decision also wit sufficient shows the and is that appellant identify The court nesses who identified the the defendant.” killing fur- man was who did the in case there the made statements added that this writing immediately presence in of homi after the evidence afforded ther the cides. in That these statements were bullets. the hand-cast 4y2, existence, possession and in the of the of the Consti Article prosecution they police, or the and that reads of the State California tution were inconsistent with the witnesses’ part: in material testimony was never Had these denied.1 aside, judgment shall “No be set inconsistent statements been made avail any granted, in or new trial they [no] able to the defendants would have * * * any error as to important evidence in As case. the unless, any procedure, aft- respect matter stated in in to similar evidence an examination of the entire er States, Gordon v. United including evidence, cause, the the 369, 374, 73 S.Ct. 97 L.Ed. 447: alleged the be of that court shall the “The contradictions to this wit complained of has resulted testimony error ness’ relate collateral not to miscarriage justice.” very matters but to the incrimination of petitioners.” Although the California provision applies in civil and both expressed court the view that it was criminal cases. deny error to this defendant statem heavily Jencks v. Appellant relies yet ents,2 prej it held the error was not States, United udicial because of the other evidence opinion in The 1103. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d tending to connect defendant the the no intimation contains ease crime since it was in the view of the in it requirement laid down procedural reasonably probable” court “not the process under due one of be taken is to would have reached other con United States. Constitution clusion than its even if say than no further went The Court produced. statements had been page page S.Ct. at (353 U.S. at is one 1013) announced standard Frankfurter Mr. Justice As stated jus- of criminal of State administration Malinski in 781, 787, 401, 412, courts. York, federal tice U.S. left the “The Constitution below is court decision The justice to the States.” of criminal domain affirmed. Generally speaking court California Judge (dissenting). POPE, Circuit its own case in its decide free to appears way.3 of the But when it decision own from the As person has been court, a state court tried determination California right has under the innocence turned denied pellant’s or States, supra, way and Roviaro v. United court the California 1. This 53, 63, States, complaint in the district puts The it. fact, alleged the United States and for to be the 1 L.Ed.2d would not be purposes must Court inclined to review we ac- of this agree with the California cept that. holding error a harmless one. a loss to un- are at court: “We Said the the error identity In the Roviaro case was re could have how the derstand furnish the of an fusal in without even see- conclusion reached this required Reversal was former. ing the statements.” mere fact that the informer’s tes timony “might helpful significance here, Although have has no (Emphasis mine.) appear defense.” from Gordon v. United prosecutions, Constitution, all criminal accused effect then the federal * ** enjoy say shall denial, whether is to obtaining compulsory process for Wit- conviction, a federal denial voids his * * nesses in his favor extends question upon uncer- is no which there documentary controlling as well as evidence. tainty oral decisions. D.C., Schneiderman, United States v. proceed inquire whether there F.Supp. 731, 735; right. Wilson v. here a a federal denial of such States, 361, 372, U.S. due requirements vacating my view, 55 L.Ed. 771. In Amendment clause subpoena production for the *4 coter- always be held to have the plain a statements of these witnesses was Amend- Sixth of those the with minous process. denial of this due 461, Brady, U.S. 316 v. Betts ment. The case net was result here that the On the L.Ed. 86 jury some, went the to all of rights priv- but not many hand, of the other the evidence should avail- that have been eight Amend- ileges first listed Suppose able. limited a defend- the state are, Fourteenth ments, because compulsory process pro- ant to for the expresses a demand Amendment duction of but He seeks two witnesses. judicial pro- of standards civilized subpoena third, to a is not but this al- concept of our within are which cedure lowed. It is a bit difficult me to see liberty, be essential to deemed ordered up how such a trial would measure to required States process of the due to the constitutional standards. capital It to Thus Amendment. that me that the denial in this case of com- is en- case, a in state an accused pulsory process procure to the contradic- counsel, not be- of the assistance titled to tory just plainly statements is a denial provision Sixth of cause process. of due bu-t that effect Amendment to principles my interpretation immutable is certain It “there are of the decisions very idea justice in inhere of which of Court will not that it government compromise of no member of free with denial a of a constitu- disregard.” right. may Powell v. union tional Thus it is inconceivable to Alabama, 71, 53 of me that State that would Court listen ar- gument although 55, 65, Another con- L.Ed. 158. that the accused had improperly which has cept right of the Sixth Amendment denied his as- requirement due counsel, yet of a sistance held to be been process the evidence of Amend- Fourteenth the defendant’s was so overwhelm- pub- right ing an accused to a is the ment that counsel could not have done him Oliver, any good; 266- In re or, hand, lic trial. on the other that The 92 L.Ed. 682. record showed defendant did good opinions job case and State defending in that a such several himself that Resweber, ex rel. Francis v. Louisiana denial of counsel was harmless error. Suppose appear it were made to that the length prosecution relation of some knowingly discuss at had made use of concepts perjured Bill of testimony. argued the fundamental Rights Can it be due clause perjured testimony so Amendment. was discredited that the use of it was harmless error and there was no “rea- my brings point: me to This probability sonable jury that the compulsory right to have an accused have reached a different verdict” had it obtaining witnesses in his process for not been received? right implicit con- also favor liberty imposed left in are not doubt We this sub- which is cept ordered ject for the Fourteenth has made it upon the states right requirement, plain if a constitutional be And this like Amendment. wholly nied, immaterial Amendment “In what other the Sixth proof may record, requires be in no mat- re- there defendant the error overwhelming, ter accused how that the versal.” was would in event forthwith strike That will the Court probably was been found be so. Such through obtained down convictions holding in Malinski v. rights, mat- no denials of constitutional York, supra. was That the other evidence ter guilt, what case in which two made confessions again in Kremen demonstrated the accused of these were involved. One States, U.S. The court coerced. held that 828, 829, was the L.Ed.2d employed coerced confession was ob- charged the defendants who were tain a conviction. was contended that It harboring assisting certain proper since under instructions fugitives justice. The defendants from could hold other confession was near were cabin arrested a secluded at coerced, and confession the first village Gov- a remote California. had been introduced had a agents ernment the cabin searched bearing one was the second on whether seized contents and hauled its entire *5 coerced, confession the use first off This them Francisco. to San Accordingly was harmless error. seizure, “beyond unreasonable search and affirmed New York court the conviction any our As cases.” sanction rule, error 292 N.Y. under its harmless 360, dissenting opinion, disclosed minority 353, 55 N.E.2d fragmentary part of the items seized Court were of similar was admitted in evidence. The majority of how- view. The the Court Court, (9 of the Cir., as well as the decision ever consider declined-to 155) reversed, 231 which was F.2d proach. They respect to held with plain make it there was an abun- “If it is coerced confession: introduced guilt dance of evidence aside from the judgment trial, conviction at jus- items seized and admitted. two though will be set aside even the evidence suggested who tices dissented apart might from confession illegal gov- effect of the seizure should be jury’s ver- sufficient to sustain erned rule of harmless error since U.S, 401, dict.” 65 [342 S.Ct. 783.] guilt ample there evidence other- subject wise. The of harmless error was compromise denial refusal even opin- mentioned Court’s right, or construe of constitutional Obviously ion. considered such a goes error, back harmless such denial as question irrelevant. 532, States, 168 U.S. to Bram v. 183, 42 540-542, L.Ed. has been denied due When defendant applying stated rule Malinski was process, or innocence ir- by his Oklahoma, Lyons 322 U.S. v. State He has not been relevant. tried 1) 1208, 597, (footnote 64 596, S.Ct. standards, pun- and cannot civilized 1210, as follows: “Wheth- 1481 until has been. am therefore ished in the record er or the other evidence plain denial view that to this general justify is sufficient to appellant of the due to which necessary to consider. is not he was entitled Amendment, was introduced over The confession namely, his to com- objection. If such admission fendant’s pulsory process, makes his conviction denied a constitutional confession rule void under the thus established. repeated in Brown York, v. has 4. This rule v. Stein State 475, 443, 397, Allen, 156, 188-194, 344 U.S. 346 U.S. California, 469; Stroble v. L.Ed. L.Ed. indicate contrary; authority but of that Gallegos 872; v. State of Ne doubtful L.Ed. the decision Leyra braska, Denno, 74 S. language is some There Ct. 98 L.Ed. 948. L.Ed. 86.