James William Lindsey v. Walter E. Craven, Warden

Lindsey was convicted of armed robbery in the courts of the State of California in 1960. He subsequently applied to the district court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the procedures employed at his trial in determining the voluntariness of his confession violated the requirements of Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964). The district court granted habeas relief, but we reversed, 427 F.2d 153 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 913 , 91 S.Ct. 886 , 27 L.Ed.2d 813 (1971), because Lindsey had not then exhausted his state remedies. After unsuccessfully pursuing those remedies, he reapplied to the district court for a writ, and the court once again granted his application. 365 F.Supp. 948 (C.D.Cal.1973). The 'state appeals, and we affirm.

We fully concur in the well-reasoned opinion of the court below. On the sparse record before us, it is far from clear whether the state trial judge ever made a full and independent determination of the voluntariness of Lindsey’s confession as required by Jackson . That such a determination was made must appear from the record “with unmistakable clarity.” See Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538, 544 ,…