Freddie Lee Tilford v. Ray H. Page, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, McAlester Oklahoma

Tenth Circuit

Freddie Lee Tilford v. Ray H. Page, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, McAlester Oklahoma

395 F.2d 220, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6793

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedMay 24, 1968

Docket10094_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 395 F.2d 220 (Freddie Lee Tilford v. Ray H. Page, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, McAlester Oklahoma) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Freddie Lee Tilford v. Ray H. Page, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, McAlester Oklahoma, 395 F.2d 220, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6793 (10th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of murder following a jury trial and is presently under sentence of death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and rehearing was denied. Tilford v. State, 437 P.2d 261 (Okl.Ct.Crim.App.1968). A petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus was denied without a hearing. We certified probable cause; issued a stay of execution and accelerated the appeal.

In the petition filed with the district court and the brief filed here, appellant presents twelve claims which, he asserts, renders the conviction and sentence constitutionally defective. At least two of these claims present grave constitutional questions. 1

One of these claims involves the prosecutor’s closing statement which allegedly contained impermissible and unconstitutional comment on Tilford’s failure to testify in his own defense. See Fontaine v. California, 390 U.S. 593, 88 S.Ct. 1229, 20 L.Ed.2d 154 (1968); Anderson v. Nelson, 390 U.S. 523, 88 S.Ct. 1133, 20 L.Ed.2d 81 (1968); Griffin v. State of California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965); and, Collins v. United States, 383 F.2d 296 (10th Cir. 1967). The other claim relates to an assertion that the state withheld evidence favorable to the defendant. See Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 785, 17 L.Ed.2d 690 (1967) and Brady v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

We believe that justice and comity would be best served by giving the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals an opportunity to examine these serious contentions in light of recent authoritative decisions.

The order of the district court is vacated and the cause remanded with instructions to grant a stay of execution and hold the matter in abeyance for a reasonable time to allow the appellant to *222 present his claims to the state court and to give that court an ample opportunity to consider them.

Reversed and remanded.

1

. We express no view concerning the other ten claims.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of murder following a jury trial and is presently under sentence of death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and rehearing was denied. Tilford v. State, 437 P.2d 261 (Okl.Ct.Crim.App.1968). A petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus was denied without a hearing. We certified probable cause; issued a stay of execution and accelerated the appeal.

In the petition filed with the district court and the brief filed here, appellant presents twelve claims which, he asserts, renders the conviction and sentence constitutionally defective. At least two of these claims present grave constitutional questions. 1

One of these claims involves the prosecutor’s closing statement which allegedly contained impermissible and unconstitutional comment on Tilford’s failure to testify in his own defense. See Fontaine v. California, 390 U.S. 593, 88 S.Ct. 1229, 20 L.Ed.2d 154 (1968); Anderson v. Nelson, 390 U.S. 523, 88 S.Ct. 1133, 20 L.Ed.2d 81 (1968); Griffin v. State of California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965); and, Collins v. United States, 383 F.2d 296 (10th Cir. 1967). The other claim relates to an assertion that the state withheld evidence favorable to the defendant. See Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 785, 17 L.Ed.2d 690 (1967) and Brady v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

We believe that justice and comity would be best served by giving the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals an opportunity to examine these serious contentions in light of recent authoritative decisions.

The order of the district court is vacated and the cause remanded with instructions to grant a stay of execution and hold the matter in abeyance for a reasonable time to allow the appellant to *222 present his claims to the state court and to give that court an ample opportunity to consider them.

Reversed and remanded.

1

. We express no view concerning the other ten claims.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

395 F.2d 220, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freddie-lee-tilford-v-ray-h-page-warden-oklahoma-state-penitentiary-ca10-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack