James William Lindsey v. Walter E. Craven

Respondent appeals from an order of the district court granting an application for habeas corpus and ordering petitioner released unless the State of California afforded him a new trial within 30 days. The district court concluded that the procedures used in determining the voluntariness of petitioner’s confession did not meet the requirements imposed by Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964).

Respondent concedes, that Jackson must be given retroactive effect, Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966), but contends that petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (c). We agree.

Petitioner challenged the voluntariness of his confession in an appeal from his conviction. People v. Lindsey, 188 Cal.App.2d 471 , 10 Cal.Rptr. 488 (1961). Similarly, he contended in a subsequent habeas corpus petition to the California Supreme Court that his confession was “obtained under conditions amounting to psychological coercion and duress.” In neither proceeding, however, did he assert, even implicitly, that the trial court's procedures violated Jackson v. Denno, swpra. This procedural issue, presented for the…