Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    Vincent P. Delle Chiaie v. Philip J. Picard, Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Norfolk, 445 F.2d 804, 1st Cir. (1971)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The petitioner, Vincent Delle Chiaie, appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition challenging his 1947 murder conviction. He claimed his confession was involuntary because he was denied counsel during interrogation and arraignment and feared a crowd outside the police station. However, at trial his counsel denied the confession was involuntary. The state courts dismissed his petitions without a hearing. The appellate court affirmed, but accepted the state's agreement to allow Delle Chiaie to have an evidentiary hearing in state court to properly present his claims that his confession was involuntary and he was prejudiced by lack of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Vincent P. Delle Chiaie v. Philip J. Picard, Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Norfolk, 445 F.2d 804, 1st Cir. (1971)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    31 views3 pages
    The petitioner, Vincent Delle Chiaie, appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition challenging his 1947 murder conviction. He claimed his confession was involuntary because he was denied counsel during interrogation and arraignment and feared a crowd outside the police station. However, at trial his counsel denied the confession was involuntary. The state courts dismissed his petitions without a hearing. The appellate court affirmed, but accepted the state's agreement to allow Delle Chiaie to have an evidentiary hearing in state court to properly present his claims that his confession was involuntary and he was prejudiced by lack of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1971-06-23 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 445 F.2d 804 Docket: 71-1068_1

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner, Vincent Delle Chiaie, appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition challenging his 1947 murder conviction. He claimed his confession was involuntary because he was denied counsel during interrogation and arraignment and feared a crowd outside the police station. However, at trial his counsel denied the confession was involuntary. The state courts dismissed his petitions without a hearing. The appellate court affirmed, but accepted the state's agreement to allow Delle Chiaie to have an evidentiary hearing in state court to properly present his claims that his confession was involuntary and he was prejudiced by lack of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    31 views3 pages

    Vincent P. Delle Chiaie v. Philip J. Picard, Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Norfolk, 445 F.2d 804, 1st Cir. (1971)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The petitioner, Vincent Delle Chiaie, appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition challenging his 1947 murder conviction. He claimed his confession was involuntary because he was denied counsel during interrogation and arraignment and feared a crowd outside the police station. However, at trial his counsel denied the confession was involuntary. The state courts dismissed his petitions without a hearing. The appellate court affirmed, but accepted the state's agreement to allow Delle Chiaie to have an evidentiary hearing in state court to properly present his claims that his confession was involuntary and he was prejudiced by lack of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    445 F.

    2d 804

    Vincent P. DELLE CHIAIE, Petitioner, Appellant,


    v.
    Philip J. PICARD, Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional
    Institution, Norfolk, Respondent, Appellee.
    No. 71-1068.

    United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.


    June 23, 1971.

    Gordon A. Martin, Jr., Boston, Mass., by appointment of the Court, for


    petitioner, appellant.
    Joseph J. Hurley, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom Robert H. Quinn, Atty.
    Gen., and Lawrence T. Bench, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., were on brief, for
    respondent, appellee.
    Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
    ALDRICH, Chief Judge.

    This is an appeal from the dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus. In 1947,
    petitioner, Delle Chiaie, hereafter defendant, then aged 20, was indicted for the
    murder of a seven-year old girl. He had signed a confession at the police station
    without counsel. Thereafter he was arraigned, also without counsel. He sought
    to plead guilty, but the court refused to accept the plea, and entered a not guilty
    plea. At all relevant times thereafter defendant has been represented by
    experienced counsel.

    At the trial the confession was admitted over objection. The attempted plea was
    not offered, and the only support for counsel's present speculation that the
    jurors knew of it is his allegation that a newspaper account of the attempted
    plea appeared at the time of arraignment. Defendant apparently made no such
    objection at the trial. He was convicted, and is now serving a life sentence, his
    conviction having been affirmed on appeal. Commonwealth v. Delle Chiaie,
    1949, 323 Mass. 615, 84 N.E.2d 7.

    In 1966, through counsel who had been junior counsel at the trial, defendant
    filed a petition for a writ of error. The petition was dismissed. Delle Chiaie v.
    Commonwealth, 1968, 353 Mass. 771, 233 N.E.2d 914. The present petition
    followed. The district court dismissed, without hearing, on the ground that
    defendant had not exhausted his state remedies. On this appeal defendant
    contends that by the two previous proceedings he sufficiently did so.
    Alternatively, he contends that there are exceptional circumstances which
    should cause us to hold that further state pursuit is excused, an allegation we
    find unnecessary to discuss separately.

    This is an unusual case. Defendant's principal contention is that his confession


    was involuntary. However, at his trial his counsel in positive terms denied such
    a claim. The then contention was that the paper he signed did not contain what
    defendant had orally told the police. This was an evidentiary matter resolved
    against him, and is not now raised. In his subsequent petition for a writ of error
    defendant somewhat straddled the question of involuntariness. He asserted that
    he was denied 'due process' in that, inter alia, a large, angry crowd had been
    outside the station house,1 but he did not aver in the petition itself, or offer
    direct testimony, that his confession was in fact involuntary. The court held that
    the record presented to it, composed principally of a sparse statement of agreed
    facts, was inadequate to present a case worthy of judicial consideration. Delle
    Chiaie v. Commonwealth, ante, at 772, 233 N.E.2d 914.

    The Assistant Attorney General interprets this dismissal as being without


    prejudice. We agree. He further represented that if we affirmed the decision of
    the district court the Attorney General would take the position in any
    subsequent state court proceedings that defendant had not in fact previously
    presented his case properly to the state court, and should now be entitled to do
    so. We accept this undertaking. It is clear on the basis of the present petition
    that defendant has alleged a case on which he should have an evidentiary
    hearing somewhere. We believe the Commonwealth is entitled to have it in its
    own courts. See United States ex rel. Kessler v. Fay, S.D.N.Y., 1964, 232
    F.Supp. 139. This is not that 'rare case' in which the deprivation of
    constitutional rights appears prima facie on the face of the record, so that
    exhaustion can be found in the state court's dismissal of the appeal on
    procedural grounds. When the only coercive force alleged was an undefined
    fear of a crowd outside the station, not affirmatively alleged to be causal, rather
    than direct fear of the police, a court might well demand a better record as a
    condition to its hearing the case. Compare Stein v. New York, 1952, 346 U.S.
    156, 182, 73 S.Ct. 1077, 97 L.Ed. 1522, with Hawkins v. United States, 1946,
    81 U.S.App.D.C. 376, 158 F.2d 652, 653-654, cert. denied, 331 U.S. 830, 67
    S.Ct. 1347, 91 L.Ed. 1844. Even where the procedural deprivation reached

    constitutional proportions, we have in the past offered the state court an


    opportunity to reconsider its decision. Wilbur v. State, 1 Cir., 1970, 421 F.2d
    1327. See State of Maine v. Wilbur, 1971, Me., 278 A.2d 139. We assume that
    at the same time the Massachusetts court will consider defendant's other point,
    and determine whether he suffered any prejudice from lack of counsel at the
    arraignment. Cf. Chin Kee v. Commonwealth, 1 Cir., 1969, 407 F.2d 10, cert.
    denied, 395 U.S. 982, 89 S.Ct. 2143, 23 L.Ed.2d 770.
    6

    Affirmed.

    Defendant also alleged that he had had only limited education, that he was
    unaware of his right to remain silent and to have counsel, and that the
    interrogation lasted several hours. As the Supreme Court has indicated,
    however, these factors are not in themselves coercive, but rather are 'relevant
    only in establishing a setting in which actual coercion might have been exerted.'
    Procunier v. Atchley, 1971, 400 U.S. 446, 453, 91 S.Ct. 485, 489, 27 L.Ed.2d
    524. Thus, the only coercive force alleged by defendant was possible fear of
    mob violence

    You might also like