Arthur Goldberg

Name: Townsend v. Sain — Concurrence
Author: Arthur Goldberg

Summary

“Townsend v. Sain — Concurrence”, is a work by Arthur Goldberg. It explores elements such as petitioner, hearing and confession.

Quotes from Townsend v. Sain — Concurrence (Arthur Goldberg)

Arthur Goldberg, Townsend v. Sain — Concurrence

“ Yet I cannot but agree with the Supreme Court of Illinois that the mere fact that a drug may be known by more than one name hardly presents a constitutional issue.
Under our Constitution the State of Illinois has the power and duty to administer its own criminal justice. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Arthur Goldberg, Townsend v. Sain — Concurrence

“ In carrying out that duty, Illinois must, as must each State, conform to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I think Illinois has clearly accorded the petitioner due process in this case. To require a federal court now to hold a new trial of factual claims which were long ago fully and fairly determined in the courts of Illinois is, I think, to frustrate the fair and prompt administration of criminal justice, to disrespect the fundamental structure of our federal system, and to debase the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Arthur Goldberg, Townsend v. Sain — Concurrence

“ On cross-examination, this witness revealed that he had never actually seen the effects of hyoscine on a human and admitted that he was unfamiliar with its use in treating drug addicts. It is evident that a finder of fact could with reason have accorded more credibility to the evidence offered by the prosecution than to that offered by the defense.
It is true, as the Court today says, that in overruling the motion to suppress the confession, the trial judge did not explicitly spell out the exclusionary standards he was applying. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Arthur Goldberg, Townsend v. Sain — Concurrence

“ If, as suggested by my Brother STEWART, these instructions are taken to evidence the exclusionary standard applied by the trial judge in ruling on the petitioner's motion to suppress, they reflect error of constitutional dimension, as does the standard of admissibility contained in the affirming opinion of the Illinois Supreme Court. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Arthur Goldberg, Townsend v. Sain — Concurrence

“ The inference of error is not negatived by the remainder of the instructions, which permit disregard of the confession if induced by force, physical or mental, duress, or promise of reward. In the context of the instructions as a whole, these references to 'voluntariness' do not meet the problems raised by the administration of the drug to the petitioner and do not vitiate the crucial inference that the trial judge viewed exclusion as dependent upon the presence of facts in addition to a druginduced sterilization of the petitioner's will. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Arthur Goldberg, Townsend v. Sain — Concurrence

“ I regard these reasons as peculiarly persuasive in the present context. We should not try to hedge in with inflexible rules what is essentially an extraordinary writ, designed to do justice in extraordinary and often unpredictable situations.
Even accepting the Court's detailed hearing standards in toto, however, I cannot agree that any one of them requires the District Court to hold a new evidentiary hearing in the present case. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Arthur Goldberg, Townsend v. Sain — Concurrence

“ The trial court dismissed the petition, and the Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed. In an unpublished opinion, that court concluded as follows:
'A study of our opinion on (the original appeal) discloses that all of the evidence with respect to the injection of hyoscine and phenobarbital was carefully considered by us in resolving the issue of the validity of petitioner's confession. (People vs.
Townsend, 11 Ill.2d 30, 35, 44, 141 N.E.2d 729, 732, 736) . Thus, it is clear that the issue of the effect of the drug on the confession was before us * * *. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Arthur Goldberg, Townsend v. Sain — Concurrence

“ Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 501 502, 73 S.Ct. 397, 443, 97 L.Ed. 469 (separate opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter) .
Mr. Justice STEWART, whom Mr. Justice CLARK, Mr. Justice HARLAN, and Mr. Justice WHITE join, dissenting. ”

Arthur Goldberg

Summary

Quotes from Townsend v. Sain — Concurrence (Arthur Goldberg)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature