Gault v. Burford (173 F.2d 813, 1949)

MURRAH, Circuit Judge.

After exhausting their state remedy by petitioning the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals tered pleas of guilty — that “if it had not been for what the officer told them”, they would not have pleaded guilty.

Testifying in support of the allegation that their pleas of guilty were induced by misrepresentations made by a state officer, petitioner Allen Gault reiterated the allegation and reluctantly named the state officer, alleged to have made the statement. He then stated that his testimony with respect to the other allegations of their petition would be the same as the testimony in support of the application for the writ in the Criminal Court of Appeals. Petitioner Mike Gault stated that his testimony would foe the same as his co-petitioner’s. The records of the proceedings in the Criminal Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States were introduced into evidence, and the case was thereupon submitted to the trial court.

The Oklahoma court of last resort having fully considered and adjudicated petitioners’ contentions with respect to due process of law, in accordance with humane concepts of a fair hearing, and the Supreme Court of the United States having refused to intercede, the trial court might have with judicial propriety declined to issue the writ, out of a rightful respect which the Federal courts owe and accord state judicial processes. White v. Ragen, 324 U. S. 760, 65 S.Ct. 978, 89 L.Ed. 1348; Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114, 64 S.Ct. 448, 88 L.Ed. 572. But, it did not stop there — it went the full length of its flexible jurisdiction. It issued the writ, the petitioners were brought into open court and permitted to testify freely. The trial court was at pains to determine if there were any other facts bearing upon the question of due process, which were not presented to and decided by the state court. Having ascertained from the petitioners that there were none, the court then proceeded to examine the proceedings in the state court and on certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, upon the records submitted by petitioners. From these records, the trial court determined that petitioners had been accorded a full and complete-hearing in the state appellate court, and that in passing upon the constitutional rights of the petitioners the state court had given consideration to every constituent element of due process, and had factually resolved those issues in favor of due process.

Although the factual adjudications in the Oklahoma appellate court are not strictly res judicata, Waley v. Johnson, 316 U.S. 101, 62 S.Ct. 964, 86 L.Ed. 1302; Cobb v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 167 F.2d 888, they are entitled to great weight and credence in determining whether, in the last analysis, the petitioners had been accorded due process in the state courts. Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U.S. 239, 44 S.Ct. 524, 68 L.Ed. 999; Wells v. United States, 318 U.S. 257, 63 S.Ct. 582, 87 L.Ed. 746; Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U.S. 224, 44 S.Ct. 519, 68 L.Ed. 989; Cobb v. Hunter, supra; Pope v. Huff, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 18, 141 F.2d 727; Garrison v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 151 F.2d 1011. Any other procedure would require the Federal courts to retry every criminal case in the state courts, where due process is challenged. Our duty to safeguard the supremacy of the constitutional command does not go that far.

Petitioners complain that the trial court, in accepting the verity of the Oklahoma Court’s factual adjudications, referred to and relied upon an affidavit of the sentencing court, which they allege was not a part of the record before the Oklahoma appellate court, and contend in effect that the court’s judgment is based upon ex parte evidence which they did not have an opportunity to refute. The fallacy of this contention is that the trial court’s judgment does not rest on the probative value, or the admissibility of the evidence forming the basis of the Oklahoma court’s judgment. Rather, it is based upon the controlling weight accorded a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, equally charged with the duty of vouchsafing due process under the 14th Amendment, as well as under the State requirements of due process, i. e. See Wade v. Mayo, 334 U.S. 672, 673, 68 S.Ct. 1270; White v. Regan, 324 U.S. 760, 65 S.CJt. 978, 89 L.Ed. 1348; House v. Mayo, 324 U.S. 42, 65 S.Ct. 517, 89 L.Ed. 739; Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114, 64 S. Ct. 448, 88 L.Ed. 572.

The judgment is affirmed.