United States ex rel. Adesso v. Fay

S.D. New York

United States ex rel. Adesso v. Fay

235 F. Supp. 765, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6844

DecidedOctober 6, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 235 F. Supp. 765 (United States ex rel. Adesso v. Fay) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States ex rel. Adesso v. Fay, 235 F. Supp. 765, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6844 (S.D.N.Y. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

WEINFELD, District Judge.

Relator is imprisoned pursuant to a judgment entered in April 1945 on the verdict of a jury which, in accordance with New York’s then existing procedure, was permitted to determine the factual dispute as to the voluntariness of his-confession, as well as the ultimate issue-of guilt or innocence under a general verdict — a procedure which the Supreme-Court, in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964), found violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The petitioner now seeks his-immediate release from custody and states that he “waives” any right to a hearing to which he may be entitled. However, the State, no less than the Federal courts, has an interest in fashioning proper constitutional standards in the administration of its criminal laws. Since the Supreme Court has held the-State’s procedure under which petitioner was convicted failed to provide the proper-constitutional safeguards, “It is New York, * * * not the federal habeascorpus court, which should first provide-[petitioner] with that * * * to which he is constitutionally entitled — an adequate evidentiary hearing productive of reliable results concerning the voluntariness of his confession.” Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. at 394, 84 S.Ct. at 1790.

The petition is dismissed.

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

WEINFELD, District Judge.

Relator is imprisoned pursuant to a judgment entered in April 1945 on the verdict of a jury which, in accordance with New York’s then existing procedure, was permitted to determine the factual dispute as to the voluntariness of his-confession, as well as the ultimate issue-of guilt or innocence under a general verdict — a procedure which the Supreme-Court, in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964), found violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The petitioner now seeks his-immediate release from custody and states that he “waives” any right to a hearing to which he may be entitled. However, the State, no less than the Federal courts, has an interest in fashioning proper constitutional standards in the administration of its criminal laws. Since the Supreme Court has held the-State’s procedure under which petitioner was convicted failed to provide the proper-constitutional safeguards, “It is New York, * * * not the federal habeascorpus court, which should first provide-[petitioner] with that * * * to which he is constitutionally entitled — an adequate evidentiary hearing productive of reliable results concerning the voluntariness of his confession.” Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. at 394, 84 S.Ct. at 1790.

The petition is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 F. Supp. 765, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-adesso-v-fay-nysd-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack