Helen Carolyn Dayton v. Clarence T. Gladden, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary

Ninth Circuit

Helen Carolyn Dayton v. Clarence T. Gladden, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary

394 F.2d 4, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7181

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 26, 1968

Docket21739

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 394 F.2d 4 (Helen Carolyn Dayton v. Clarence T. Gladden, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Helen Carolyn Dayton v. Clarence T. Gladden, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary, 394 F.2d 4, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7181 (9th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the denial of appellant’s petition for habeas corpus challenging the admission at appellant’s state court criminal trial of three groups of statements taken from appellant by police officers and a deputy district attorney. Appellant’s conviction preceded Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Appellant’s statements were admissible under the standards established in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964). The first group of statements was taken during the investigatory rather than the accusatory stage in the criminal process. 378 U.S. at 492, 84 S.Ct. 1758. It does not appear that appellant requested and was denied counsel before giving the second group of statements. Wilson v. Anderson, 379 F.2d 330, 334 (9th Cir. 1967); Manning v. State of California, 378 F.2d 357 (9th Cir. 1967). In light of the contents of the statements, admission of the third group of statements following the proper admission of the first two groups was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Thompson v. United States, 382 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1967); Wilson v. Anderson, 379 F.2d 330, 331 (9th Cir. 1967).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the denial of appellant’s petition for habeas corpus challenging the admission at appellant’s state court criminal trial of three groups of statements taken from appellant by police officers and a deputy district attorney. Appellant’s conviction preceded Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Appellant’s statements were admissible under the standards established in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964). The first group of statements was taken during the investigatory rather than the accusatory stage in the criminal process. 378 U.S. at 492, 84 S.Ct. 1758. It does not appear that appellant requested and was denied counsel before giving the second group of statements. Wilson v. Anderson, 379 F.2d 330, 334 (9th Cir. 1967); Manning v. State of California, 378 F.2d 357 (9th Cir. 1967). In light of the contents of the statements, admission of the third group of statements following the proper admission of the first two groups was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Thompson v. United States, 382 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1967); Wilson v. Anderson, 379 F.2d 330, 331 (9th Cir. 1967).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

394 F.2d 4, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helen-carolyn-dayton-v-clarence-t-gladden-warden-oregon-state-ca9-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack