Michael D. Poulin v. J. B. Gunn, Warden

In his petition for habeas corpus relief, Michael Poulin claims that the incriminating in-court statements to which the bailiff testified were made in confidence to his attorney, and were overheard through the bailiff’s eavesdropping. Although the record is bare on this point, if this is true, petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights may have been violated. Weatherford v. Bursey, - U.S. --, --- n. 4, 97 S.Ct. 837 , 50 L.Ed.2d - (1977); Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 408 , 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966); Black v. United States, 385 U.S. 26 , 87 S.Ct. 190 , 17 L.Ed.2d 26 (1966); United States v. Choate, 527 F.2d 748, 751 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 971 , 96 S.Ct. 2167 , 48 L.Ed.2d 794 (1976); United States v. Zarzour, 432 F.2d 1, 3 (5th Cir.1970).

In this ease, it is not possible to say that the bailiff’s testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), or that there is no “reasonable possibility that the evidence . . might have contributed to the conviction.” Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 , 84 S.Ct. 229, 230 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963). We are also unable to conclude that…