The Burger Court Opinion Writing Database

Transcription

1 The Burger Court Opinion Writing Database Turner v. United States 396 U.S. 398 (1970) Paul J. Wahlbeck, George Washington University James F. Spriggs, II, Washington University Forrest Maltzman, George Washington University

2 Re: No Turner v. U. S.

3 December 22, 1969 Dear Bill: I shall circulate a dissent in Turner v. United States, No. 190, as soon as I can tone it down to a moderate version. I think this holding goes a long way toward destroying the right to trial that the Bill of Rights is suppose to guarantee. Cathy. Best wishes of the Season to you and Sincerely, Hugo (by telephone) Justice Douglas

4 51tvrtute (ourt of theptittb- %tzttes pagtl ington, (C. zng4g CHAMBERS OF JUSTICE H UGO L. BLACK December 31, 1969 Dear Byron: Re: No Turner v. United States I regret that I cannot join the opinion you have circulated in this case, and I shall be circulating a dissenting opinion shortly. Since rely, Justice White cc: Members of the Conference

5 1 To: The Cief ti g Ja:-;t,-, J11:;',;!. ril :;71en w Yr.T 'n,l p a it Ju:t, e ::.2, ' 7:J Yr. Ju hal 41-3 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STAM Bi.:. NO OCTOBER TERM, 1969 James Turner, Petitioner, v. United States. [January, 1970] Ma. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Few if any decisions of this Court have done more than the one today to undercut and destroy the due process safeguards the federal Bill of Rights specifically provides to protect defendants charged with crime in United States courts. Among the accused's Bill of Rights' guarantees which the Court today weakens are: 1. His right not to be compelled to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, 2. The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, 3. The right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself, 4. The right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, 5. The right to be confronted with the witnesses against him, 6. The right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses for his defense, 7. The right to counsel, and 8. The right to trial by an impartial jury. The foregoing rights are among those which the Bill of Rights specifically spells out and which due process circuiat d. /- r - 7c) 'te; r-a Reeireula 5

6 S 2 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATE& ; Black, J. To: The Chief Just:;... 'ti Kr. Justice Dougln. : III, Justice Harlan Mr7 JuSt ice Brennan n mr, Justice Stewart Cm1 0 Mr, Justice White oil Justice Fortes. Justice Marshal) rj i Circulated:(! No OCTOBER TERM, 1969 jah i. b ti r, NJ, ". ' Recircul q f ''''' ' r) On Writ of Certiorari to the 3 James Turner, Petitioner, United States Court of 0 v. Appeals for the Third United States. Circuit. [January, 1970] MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS j oins, dissenting. Few if any decisions of this Court have done more than this one today to undercut and destroy the due process safeguards the federal Bill of Rights specifically provides to protect defendants charged with crime in United States courts. Among the accused's Bill of Rights' guarantees which the Court today weakens are: 1. His right not to be compelled to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury; 2. The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; 3. The right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself ; 4. The right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due proess of law; 5. The right to be confronted with the witnesses against him; 6. The right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses for his defense; 7. The right to counsel; 8. The right to trial by an impartial jury. The foregoing rights are among those which the Bill of Rights specifically spells out and which due process

7 .;%zprtittt ottrt of tittlattita,fotatto aoltington, At. (4. arg)g CHAMBERS OF JUSTICE WILLIAM 0. DOUGLAS December 19, 1969 Dear Hugo: In No Turner v. United States, Byron has circulated an opinion, as you know, which confirms the conviction with respect to heroin and reverses the conviction with respect to cocaine. My records show that you and I were the only ones that voted to reverse on both phases of the case and I was hoping that you would find the time to write a few words in dissent. Elizabeth. Merry Christmas to you and William 0. Douglas

8 To: Tha Cb:-.7u1Y. '1 Yr. n 11, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STAT r. orn: No OCTOBER TERM, 1969 Recirculated: On Writ of Certiorari to the James Turner, Petitioner, ' United States Court of v. Appeals for the Third United States. Circuit. [January, 1970] MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting. Few if any decisions of this Court have done more than the one today to undercut and destroy the due process safeguards the federal Bill of Rights specifically provides to protect defendants charged with crime in United States courts. Among the accused's Bill of Rights' guarantees which the Court today weakens are: 1. His right not to be compelled to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, 2. The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, 3. The right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself, 4. The right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, 5. The right to be confronted with the witnesses against him, 6. The right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses for his defense, 7. The right to counsel, and 8. The right to trial by an impartial jury. The foregoing rights are among those which the Bill of Rights specifically spells out and which due process

9 REPRODUCED FROM HE COLII,CTIONS T IE MANUSCRIPT DIVISJ

10 2tt.preztte (Court of tilt cite? ;.-51atto Atoirington, p. cc. zag4g CHAMBERS OF JUSTICE WM. J. BRENNAN, JR. December 29, 1969 RE: No Turner v. United States Dear Byron: case. I agree with your opinion in the above Justice White cc: The Conference

11

12 To: The Chief Justin Justice fila Justice Dou Justice Har Justice/i*e tv Justice Sie r Justice For Justice Mar 1 From: White, J. O SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESc irculated: /.2 - /7-4e No OCTOBER TERM, 1969 Recirculated: O James Turner, Petitioner, v. United States. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. O [January, 1970] MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner was found guilty by a jury on four counts charging violations of the federal narcotics laws. The issue before us is the validity of the provisions of 21 U. S. C. 174 and 26 U. S. C (a) which authorize an inference of guilt from the fact of possession of narcotic drugs, in this case heroin and cocaine. The charges arose from seizures by federal narcotics agents of two packages of narcotics. On June 1, 1967, Turner and two companions were arrested in Weehawken, New Jersey, shortly after their automobile emerged from the Lincoln Tunnel. While the companions were being searched but before Turner was searched, the arresting agents saw Turner throw a package to the top of a nearby wall. The package was retrieved and was found to be a foil package weighing grams and containing a mixture of cocaine hydrochloride and sugar, 5% of which was cocaine. Government agents thereafter found a tinfoil package containing heroin under the front seat of the car. This package weiged grams and contained a mixture of heroin, cinchonal alkaloid, mannitol, and sugar, 15.2% of the mixture being heroin. Unlike the cocaine mixture, the heroin mixture was packaged within the tinfoil wrapping in small double glassine bags ;

13 STYLISTIC CHANGES THROUGHOUT. Iff:=EtitES: To: The Chief Just Justice B1 Justice _ Do C) Justice Cl O M Justice r) Justicl t0 J`) vor Ju,t_ce 0 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATE :cula tea NO OCTOBER TERM, 1969 Recirculated. 42 / James Turner, Petitioner, v. United States. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. [January, 1970] MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner was found guilty by a jury on four counts charging violations of the federal narcotics laws. The issue before us is the validity of the provisions of 21 U. S. C. 174 and 26 U. S. C (a) which authorize an inference of guilt from the fact of possession of narcotic drugs, in this case heroin and cocaine. The charges arose from seizures by federal narcotics agents of two packages of narcotics. On June 1, 1967, Turner and two companions were arrested in Weehawken, New Jersey, shortly after their automobile emerged from the Lincoln Tunnel. While the companions were being searched but before Turner was searched, the arresting agents saw Turner throw a package to the top of a nearby wall. The package was retrieved and was found to be a foil package weighing grams and containing a mixture of cocaine hydrochloride and sugar, 5% of which was cocaine. Government agents thereafter found a tinfoil package containing heroin under the front seat of the car. This package weighed grams and contained a mixture of heroin, cinchonal alkaloid, mannitol, and sugar, 15.2% of the mixture being heroin. Unlike the cocaine mixture, the heroin mixture was packaged within the tinfoil wrapping in small double glassine bags;

14 To: The Chief Justice Justice Black Justice Douglas Jr,qt i op Harlan L-M'. Justice Brennan Justice Stewart Ju,t'ce orlas Justice Marshall 3 From: White, J. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STA,Miatea: No. NO.-OCTOBER TERM, 1969 DEC 2 0 James Turner, Petitioner, v. United States. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. {January, 1970] MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner was found guilty by a jury on four counts charging violations of the federal narcotics laws. The issue before us is the validity of the provisions of 21 U. S. C. 174 and 26 U. S. C (a) which authorize-- an inference of guilt from the fact of possession of narcotic drugs, in this case heroin and cocaine. The charges arose from seizures by federal narcotics. agents of two packages of narcotics. On June 1, 1967, Turner and two companions were arrested in Weehawken, New Jersey, shortly after their automobile emerged from the Lincoln Tunnel. While the companions were beingsearched but before Turner was searched, the arrestingagents saw Turner throw a package to the top of a nearby wall. The package was retrieved and was found to be a foil package weighing grams and containing a mixture of cocaine hydrochloride and sugar, 5% of which was cocaine. Government agents thereafter found a tinfoil package containing heroin under the front seat of the car. This package weighed grams and contained a mixture of heroin, cinchonal alkaloid, mannitol, and sugar, 15.2% of the mixture being heroin. Unlike the cocaine mixture, the heroin mixture was packaged within the tinfoil wrapping in small double glassine bags

15 To: The MP. oar. Chief Justice Justice Black Justice Douglas Justice Harlan Justice Brennan Justice Stewart Justice Fortas Justice Marshall NOTICE : This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are rv roin : white, J. quested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of OM United States, Washington, D.C , of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. Circulated: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STAMrculated: JAN No OCTOBER TERM, 1969 James Turner, Petitioner, v. United States. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. [January 20, 1970] MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court., Petitioner was found guilty by a jury on four counts charging violations of the federal narcotics laws. The issue before us is the validity of the provisions of 21 U. S. C. 174 and 26 U. S. C (a) which authorize an inference of guilt from the fact of possession of narcotic drugs, in this case heroin and cocaine. The charges arose from seizures by federal narcotics agents of two packages of narcotics. On June 1, 1967, Turner and two companions were arrested in Weehawken, New Jersey, shortly after their automobile emerged from the Lincoln Tunnel. While the companions were being searched but before Turner was searched, the arresting agents saw Turner throw a package to the top of a nearby wall. The package was retrieved and was found to be a foil package weighing grams and containing a mixture of cocaine hydrochloride and sugar, 5% of which was cocaine. Government agents thereafter found a tinfoil package containing heroin under the front seat of the car. This package weighed grams and contained a mixture of heroin, cinchonal alkaloid, mannitol, and sugar, 15.2% of the mixture being heroin. Unlike the cocaine mixture, the heroin mixture was packaged within the tinfoil wrapping in small double glassine bags;

16 1 To: The Chief Justice Justice Black Justice Douglas Justice Harlan Justice Brennan Justice Stewart Justice White Justice Fortas SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATk. Marshall, J. No OCTOBER TERM, 1969 Circulated: / / On Writ of Certiorari to th Re e James Turner, Petitioner circulated: O ' United States Court of v. Appeals for the Third United States. 0 Circuit. [January, 1970] MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, concurring. I concur in the judgment of the Court, affirming petitioner's conviction on Counts 1 and 2 and reversing his conviction on Counts 3 and 4. In so doing, however, I can agree with the majority on Count 2 only insofar as it concludes that evidence of possession of 275 glassine bags of heroin proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Turner was distributing heroin in violation of 26 U. S. C (a).- That same evidence does not establish that he had purchased the heroin in violation of that statute. The opinion of the court establishes convincingly the virtual certainty that the heroin in Turner's possession had been illegally imported into the country. It was thus proper with regard to Count 1 for the trial judge to instruct the jurors in effect that 'if they found that Turner did indeed possess the drug, they could infer that the heroin had been illegally imported and impute knowledge of that fact to Turner. However, the instruction that possession is prima facie evidence of a violation of 4704 (a) is quite different. It may be true that most persons who possess heroin have purchased it not in or from a stamped package However, Turner himself may well have obtained the heroin involved here in any of a number of ways for example, by stealing it from another distributor, or by manufacturing or otherwise acquiring it abroad and smuggling it into this coun-