Edgar M. Ellis v. C. J. Fitzharris, Department of Corrections of the State of California

In this habeas corpus proceeding Edgar M. Ellis, a California state prisoner, contends that the admission of his confession and incriminating statements (hereinafter confession) at his state jury trial deprived him of due process of law. Ellis is serving a life sentence following his 1946 conviction of murder in the first degree. The district court denied the application without hearing after examining the state court record. We reversed on a procedural ground and remanded for further proceedings. Ellis v. Fitzharris, 9 Cir., 377 F.2d 543 . 1 The district court again denied the application after reexamining the state trial record. This appeal followed.

Ellis here renews the argument he made in the district court that the state trial judge, over Ellis’ objection, admitted his assertedly involuntary confession into evidence without first making an independent determination as to its voluntariness. The parties are agreed that if this is what happened at the state trial there was a failure to comply with the rule announced in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 . 2

The district court rejected Ellis’ Jackson v. Denno argument on two grounds. The first of…

(dissenting):

I do not believe that Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 (1964), and Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538 , 87 S.Ct. 639 , require us to do what the majority has done herein.

The case was tried in 1946 before a judge who died November 21, 1949.

I would say that there is just as good an argument on the state record that the state trial judge applied the Massachusetts rule as that he applied the New York rule. On a case pre-Sims, I would require the petitioner to show by book and page wherein in the state record that the New York rule was applied. I had always thought in habeas corpus the burden of proof was on petitioner.

It is true that Sims says the fact of the application (of the Massachusetts rule) must appear with “unmistakable clarity.” But why did the majority say in Sims, “Jackson, having been decided June 22, 1964, was binding on the courts of Georgia in this case [Sims], it having been tried October 7, 1964 ?” True it is said it is a constitutional rule, but I think Sims lays down a procedural rule to assure compliance with the constitutional mandate that confessions not be coerced. Thus, I would leave on an old case the burden of proof on…

407 F.2d 799 Edgar M. ELLIS, Appellant, v. C. J. FITZHARRIS, Department of Corrections of the State of California, Appellee. Nos. 22430, 22430-A. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Jan. 22, 1969, Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied April 9, 1969. Eugene Epstein (argued), of Cominos & Shostak, Salinas, Cal., for appellant. James A. Aiello (argued), Deputy Atty. Gen., Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Before CHAMBERS, HAMLEY and MERRILL, Circuit Judges. HAMLEY, Circuit Judge: 1 In this habeas corpus proceeding Edgar M. Ellis, a California state prisoner, contends that the admission of his confession and incriminating statements (hereinafter confession) at his state jury trial deprived him of due process of law. Ellis is serving a life sentence following his 1946 conviction of murder in the first degree. The district court denied the application without hearing after examining the state court record. We reversed on a procedural ground and remanded for further ther proceedings. Ellis v. Fitzharris, 9 Cir., 377 F.2d 543 . 1 The district court again denied the application after reexamining the state trial record. This appeal followed. 2…