Case law · Highest court · Federal

Townsend v. Sain

Decided
March 18, 1963
Docket
8
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Federal

Cited 4,485 timesOverruled in part (verified)Overruled in part by Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 (1992) (verified: Constitution Annotated, Library of Congress) · Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes

What later courts said

  • holding that the federal court must grant an evidentiary hearing where “(4) there is a substantial allegation of newly discovered evidence” — Quezada v. Scribner (2010)
  • holding that “[i]f the judge decides an evidentiary period is neither required nor desirable, he shall make such a disposition of the petition ‘as justice shall require’ ” — Hence v. Smith (1999)
  • holding that where the decision of the state trier of fact rests “upon an error of law rather than an adverse deten-mination of the facts, a hearing is compelled to ascertain the facts” — Michael Eugene Thompson v. Michael W. Haley (2001)

Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.

How the opinion begins

Mr. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case, in its present posture raising questions as to the right to a plenary hearing in federal habeas corpus, comes to us once again after a tangle of prior proceedings. In 1955 the petitioner, Charles Townsend, was tried before a jury for murder in the Criminal Court of Cook County, Illinois. At his trial petitioner, through his court-appointed counsel, the public defender, objected to the [*296] introduction of his confession on the ground that it was the product of coercion. A hearing was held outside the presence of the jury, and the trial judge denied the motion to suppress. He later admitted the confession into evidence. Further evidence relating to the issue of volun-tariness was introduced before the jury. The charge permitted them to disregard the confession if they found that it was involuntary. Under Illinois law the admissibility of the confession is determined solely by the trial judge, but the question of voluntariness, because it bears on the issue of credibility, may also be presented to the jury. See, e. g., People v. Schwarts, 3 Ill. 2d 520, 523, 121 N. E. 2d 758, 760; People v. Roach, 369 Ill. 95, 15 N. E. 2d 873. The jury found petitioner guilty and affixed the death penalty to its verdict. The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the conviction, two justices dissenting. People v. Townsend, 11 Ill. 2d 30, 141 N. E. 2d 729. This Court denied a writ of certiorari. 355 U. S. 850.

Petitioner next sought post-conviction collateral relief in the Illinois State courts. The Cook County Criminal Court dismissed his petition without holding an eviden-tiary hearing. The Supreme Court of Illinois by order affirmed, holding that the issue of coercion was res judi-cata, and this Court again denied certiorari. 358 U. S. 887. The issue of coercion was pressed at all stages of these proceedings.

Statutes cited

Cite this

Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963)

Read the full opinion

Free account needed

Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.