Burwell

Burwell v. Teets

Good Law
245 F.2d 154
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 3, 1957Nos. 15312, 15313California9,756 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Pope, J.

Burwell and Rogers were inmates of the California State Penitentiary at San Quentin. On the evening of January 14, 1952, in what was apparently an effort to escape from the prison, they killed two prison guards and attacked and seriously injured two other guards. They were ■charged with murder, verdicts of guilty were returned, and death sentences imposed. Upon their mandatory appeals to the Supreme Court of California, they urged among other assignments of error, that upon their trial (they were tried together), they had been denied certain rights under the Constitution of the United States, and thereby had been deprived of due process of law in their conviction.

The judgments of conviction were affirmed, People v. Burwell, 44 Cal.2d 16 , 279 P.2d 744 , and petition for certiorari to review the action of the California Supreme Court was denied, 349 U.S. 936 , 75 S.Ct. 788 , 99 L.Ed. 1265 . The appellants then filed their separate petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the court below making the same allegations of denial of constitutional rights which had been specified in their previous appeals to the California Supreme Court. Orders to show cause were issued directed to the…

Concurring Opinion

Fee, J.

(concurring in result only).

There are no doubts as to the stark, naked facts in this case. These two convicts killed one guard and thereafter assaulted two others, and finally deliberately murdered a fourth because he noted blood on their clothes and was about to report the fact.

The death penalty was imposed by the jury. It is hardly conceivable that it could have been otherwise, if the penalty were available, as it is. In all societies, the murder of guards who have been placed by the public over convicted criminals for the protection of the community is looked upon with disfavor.

The facts were uncontroverted. Under our system, a jury trial was necessary. After laborious effort, our colleagues have found that the trial was fair and impartial and that no constitutional right of either defendant was violated.

Four judicial agencies had passed upon these questions. The trial judge of the state regulated the conduct of the court, made rulings and submitted the case to the jury. The jury passed upon the facts and imposed the penalty of death. The Supreme Court of California unanimously rendered a lengthy and carefully considered opinion. People v. Burwell, 44 Cal.2d 16 , 279…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.