Von Moltke v. Gillies/Dissent Burton

United States Supreme Court

332 U.S. 708

Von Moltke  v.  Gillies

 Argued: Nov. 20, 1947. --- Decided: Jan 19, 1948

Mr. Justice BURTON, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice REED concur, dissenting.

As the issues in this case are factual and deal largely with the credibility of witnesses, the binding force of this decision as a precedent is narrow. However, to guard against undue extension of its influence, a recorded dissent seems justified.

The Government does not contest the release of the pei tioner if she establishes, as a matter of fact, that either her long considered and unequivocal plea of guilty in the original proceedings against her for violation of the Espionage Act or her written and otherwise clearly stated waiver of counsel in those proceedings was not freely, intelligently and knowingly made. The Government vigorously contends that she has failed in this proceeding to establish either of those facts. We agree with the Government. She has failed to do so and, having so failed, she is not entitled to release. The printed record does not require reversal of the judgment. The uniform findings of fact against her by the three trial judges who separately saw and heard her are amply sustainable.

The petitioner made her plea of guilty and filed her waiver of counsel in open court before District Judge Arthur F. Lederle on October 7, 1943. In November, 1944, after consideration and denial of her motion for leave to withdraw her plea of guilty, she was sentenced by District Judge Edward J. Moinet. She has made no direct attack on the judgment against her. Accordingly, before considering the exceptional burden of proof which she must bear in making a collateral attack upon that judgment more than a year after it was entered, it is well to examine the process of law which led up to this judgment.

At her arraignment, September 21, 1943, before District Judge Edward J. Moinet, she was assigned counsel to assist her during the arraignment. Such counsel advised her to stand mute. She did so. This conduct preserved her full rights and it has not prejudiced her position. A plea of not guilty was entered for her. This left her free to stand by it or to change it to a plea of guilty as she later did. There is no indication that other counsel could have done more for her than was done. She thus was made aware that the court would assign counsel to assist her. In fact she testified that, after the arraignment, 'Judge Moinet said he would appoint an attorney right away, and I understood that the gentleman was to be expected to come right away.' This referred to the period after her arraignment.

In addition to this contact with the attitude of the court on the subject of counsel, she frequently discussed the subject of counsel with her husband. He himself had some legal education. She also talked with two lawyer friends of her husband who came to see her as friends, although not professionally. She likewise discussed her situation on many occasions with the representatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and occasionally with representatives of the United States Attorney. She repeatedly was urged by her husband not to do anything until she had consulted with an attorney. On the basis of this advice, she decided not to plead guilty on September 28, although several other defendants in the same proceeding had done so. She testified as follows about her husband's advice and about her decision of September 28:

'Q. He told you to get a lawyer? A. Yes; he said I should not (plead guilty) before I have seen an attorney; on such a question I should talk to an attorney first about the whole thing:

'A. My husband said to wait until a lawyer comes out.

'Q. And you decided not to plead guilty because of that? A. Because of that, yes.'

Several days later she finally determined to plead guilty. On October 7, 1943, she expressly waived counsel both in open court and in writing. As to this she later was asked on the stand: 'Q. So, during the week you decided to disregard the advice that your husband had given you? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. You made that decision; yes or no? A. Yes.'

In other words, she had discussed her situation to her own satisfaction to the point where she had reached a conclusion both as to her plea of guilty and as to her wish to waive counsel. There is no constitutional provision that required or permitted counsel to be thrust upon her against her wishes. She had a right to decide that she di not want to discuss her case further with anyone. The issue was not then and is not now whether she might have been benefited by having counsel. She was an 'intelligent, mentally acute woman' and, for reasons of her own, she made up her mind that she wished to plead guilty and to waive counsel. If she did this freely, intelligently and knowingly, that was her right and that action should be final, subject only to a motion to withdraw her plea in regular course by due process of law or to appeal from the judgment rendered on her plea. Under the rules of the court, any withdrawal of her plea had to be made within ten days after entry of such plea and before sentence was imposed. Rules for Criminal Appeals, Rule II(4), 292 U.S. 662. This was not done. Judge Lederle, to guard against any misunderstanding, on October 7, 1943, especially inquired if she desired the assistance of counsel. She answered in the negative. He then inquired as to what her plea was. She answered guilty. In addition, she submitted a written waiver of counsel. The court then deferred sentence and referred the case to the United States Probation Officer for investigation and report. Ample time was taken for this.

In June, 1944, she was taken before Judge Moinet before whom she originally had been arraigned. She then advised him that she wished to change her plea. The judge informed her that she was entitled to representation by counsel and that an attorney ought to make a motion for permission to withdraw her plea and that, if she had a preference as to counsel, he would appoint such counsel as she desired him to appoint. The matter was left in abeyance while she tried to select counsel. On July 3, 1944, she wrote to Judge Moinet, advising him that she had no preference and the court soon thereafter appointed counsel for the purpose of making her motion. The assistance rendered by such counsel is not criticized. He secured from Judge Moinet not merely a ruling upon the procedural point as to the untimeliness of her motion, but also specific findings bearing upon its merits. This order made by Judge Moinet, about a year after her arraignment before him, is significant because of its direct relation to the issue now before the Court. His order read as follows:

'This cause having come on for hearing upon the motion of the defendant Grafin Marianna von Moltke for leave to withdraw her plea of guilty, heretofore entered, and for leave to enter a plea of Not Guilty to the indictment filed herein, the matter after hearing, having been submitted, the Court, after consideration of said motion and of the arguments presented on behalf of the respective parties hereto, specifically finds:

'1. That the defendant Grafin Marianna von Moltke was properly advised of her constitutional rights by the Court, both prior to and at the time she entered her plea of Guilty to the indictment;

'2. That the plea of Guilty, entered several weeks after the filing of the indictment and her arraignment thereon, was submitted after due and careful deliberation;

'3. That the defendant was advised of and thoroughly understood the nature of the charge contained in the indictment filed in this cause;

'4. That no promises or inducements or threats were made for the purpose of obtaining the plea of Guilty, and that the entry of the plea of Guilty was not due to any misrepresentations;

'5. That the motion praying for leave to withdraw the plea of Guilty was not filed within the period fixed by Rule II(4) adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States of America;

'Wherefore, It is Ordered that the said motion to withdraw the plea of guilty entered by the defendant Graffin (Grafin) Marianna von Moltke in the above entitled cause, be and the same is hereby denied.'

This was in November, 1944. Judge Moinet asked the defendant whether she had anything to say why judgment should not be pronounced against her, and, no sufficient reason to the contrary being shown or appearing to the judge, he sentencd her to imprisonment for four years. She began serving her sentence. However, after a determination had been made by the Government in 1945, looking toward her removal and repatriation to Germany, she, in 1946, filed a petition for habeas corpus making the present collateral attack on the original proceedings. We, therefore, are asked to review here the factual findings of the District Court made in April, 1946, through District Judge Ernest A. O'Brien in this habeas corpus proceeding and, by way of collateral attack, to review the action of the same District Court, taken in the original proceeding through Judge Lederle in October, 1943, and through Judge Moinet in November, 1944. While such proceedings by habeas corpus, based on constitutional grounds, are vital to the preservation of individual rights, the protection of our judicial process against the making, in this way, of unjustified attacks upon such process is equally important to the preservation of the rights of the people as a whole. Each attempted attack calls for the careful weighing not only of the claims made, but also of the proof submitted to sustain each claim.

In now attacking collaterally the unappealed and deliberate judicial proceedings of 1944, a heavy burden of proof rests upon the petitioner to establish the invalidity of her original plea and waiver. The essential presumption of regularity which attaches to judicial proceedings is not lightly to be rebutted. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468, 469, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1024, 1025, 82 L.Ed. 1461, 146 A.L.R. 357; Hawk v. Olson, 326 U.S. 271, 279, 66 S.Ct. 116, 120, 90 L.Ed. 61. Judge O'Brien recognized the strength of this presumption and the heavy burden of proof to be borne by the petitioner. He therefore held extended hearings at which the petitioner and many others appeared as witnesses. The evidence included a substantial showing that the trial judge in accepting the petitioner's plea of guilty in the original proceeding had done so only after satisfying himself, by careful questioning, that the plea was not the result of threats or promises and that, with knowledge of her right to counsel, the petitioner had voluntarily waived that right. ^[1] At the conclusion of these hearings Judge O'Brien found not only that the petitioner had failed to sustain the burden resting upon her, but that the overwhelming weight of the evidence in these proceedings was against her.

His statement as the trial judge in the habeas corpus proceedings is impressive and entitled to great weight here (72 F.Supp. 994, 995):

'In the petition filed in this cause the petitioner directly or by implication charges that the District Attorney having the case in charge and agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation mislead (misled) her or made promises to her that which at least (in) some degree, influenced her action in pleading guilty to the charge. I am of the opinion that these charges have now been abandoned by the petitioner but for the purposes of the record I wish to state most vigorously that there was absolutely nothing in the testimony sustaining such charges or implications. The conduct of both the officials of the District Attorney's office and the agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation were meticulous in safeguarding the rights of the petitioner and that the record is utterly bare of any support of petitioner's contentions.

'The petitioner is a woman obviously of good education and above the average in intelligence. Her knowledge of English was fluent and ample. She had discussed the case with various people before the plea of guilty was entered. In fact, at her own request, she had a conference with the chief assistant district attorney wherein she endeavored to secure from him some promises of leniency and convenience as an inducement to a plea of guilty. These advancements by the petitioner were, o course, repudiated by the district attorney and she was informed of the officials who had jurisdiction over the matter in advent (the event) of her plea of guilty.

'The chief contention of the petitioner was that her waiver of her right to counsel was not competently and intelligently made. The plea was taken before Judge Arthur Lederle of this District. The evidence showed that the Judge inquired of her if she understood the charges made in the indictment. She answered in the affirmative. The Judge inquired if she desired the assistance of counsel. She answered in the negative. The Judge then inquired what was her plea. She answered guilty. In addition to this she submitted a signed waiver stating that she did not desire counsel.

'The only substantial question in this case is whether the petitioner intelligently and knowingly waived her constitutional rights. It was her obligation to sustain the allegations of her petition by a preponderance of evidence. Not only has she failed in this, but I believe that the evidence is overwhelming against her contentions. The petitioner is an intelligent, mentally acute woman. She understood the charge and the proceedings. She freely, intelligently and knowingly waived her constitutional rights. I conclude, therefore, that there is no merit in her petition and that it shall be dismissed together with the writ.'

The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment dismissing the petition for the writ of habeas corpus. That judgment is now brought here and we are called upon to make a further review of the factual conclusions of the District Court in the habeas corpus proceedings.

Due process of law calls for an equal regard by us for the interests of the Government and of the petitioner in seeking the nearest possible approximation to the truth. Necessarily we have only the printed record here. On the other hand, the trial judge, faced by the same issues, heard spoken the words we now read. He saw the original instruments that we now see reproduced. He observed the conduct and expressions of the petitioner and of the other witnesses whereas we cannot make an informed independent conjecture as to such conduct or expressions. From the living record he found the factual issues overwhelmingly against the petitioner.

There is nothing in the printed record sufficient to convince us that, if we had seen the witnesses and heard the testimony, we would not have reached the same conclusion. Much less is there anything in it that convinces us that, not having seen or heard it made, we are justified in reversing his findings which were based upon more than can be before us. Under the circumstances, we believe that the truth is more nearly approximated and justice is more surely served by reading the printed record in the strong light of the trial judge's factual conclusions than by attempting to interpret that record without giving large effect to his conclusions as to its credibility and to the inferences he has drawn from it. The aid to the ascertainment of the truth to be derived from the trial court's impartial observation of the witnesses should not be dissipated in the process of review. His appraisal of the living record is entitled to proportionately more, rather than less, reliance the further the reviewing court is removed from the scene of the trial. See District of Columbia v. Pace, 320 U.S. 698, 701, 64 S.Ct. 406, 408, 88 L.Ed. 408; United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 503, 518, 63 S.Ct. 1233, 1240, 87 L.Ed. 1546; Williams Mfg. Co. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 316 U.S. 364, 367, 62 S.Ct. 1179, 1181, 86 L.Ed. 1537; Delaney v. United States, 263 U.S. 586, 589, 590, 44 S.Ct. 206, 207, 68 L.Ed. 462.

Her status as an enemy alien does not, in itself, affect her right to counsel or the informed character of her plea of guilty and her waiver of counsel. The fact that the charge against her was under the Espionage Act and therefore carried a technical possibility of the death penalty did not at any time it roduce a practical consideration that she was in actual danger of suffering capital punishment. She accurately forecast the general character of her sentence and was concerned primarily with the wish that her sentence be served near her family. An assistant district attorney stated that he would write a letter recommending that she be imprisoned close to her family.

While a conspiracy is exceptionally difficult to define in all its legal and factual complexities, there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents an accused from freely, intelligently and knowingly choosing to plead guilty to that, as well as to other complex charges, for reasons best known to the accused, as an alternative to standing trial on that charge. This was her right. Having thus positively decided not to stand trial she did not require counsel in order freely, intelligently and knowingly to waive counsel.

Our Constitution, Bill of Rights and fundamental principles of government call for careful and sympathetic observance of the due process of law that is guaranteed to all accused persons, including enemy aliens like the petitioner. The Constitution, however, was adopted also in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to the people of the United States as a whole. To that end, it is equally important to review with sympathetic understanding the judicial process as constitutionally administered by our courts. While the majority of this Court are not ready to affirm the judgment below on the record as it stands, their decision to remand the case for further findings does not mean that established and salutary general presumptions in favor of the validity of judicial proceedings and in favor of a trial court's conclusions as to the credibility of witnesses are to be relaxed.

Notes

1. See Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 276, 277, 63 S.Ct. 236, 240, 241, 87 L.Ed. 268, 143 A.L.R. 435.