John W. McGUINN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit1956-12-06No. No. 13468

239 F.2d 449

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the order denying McGuinn's § 2255 motion to vacate his rape and sodomy conviction, rejecting claims of inadequate counsel, perjured testimony, denial of compulsory process, and involuntary confession.

John McGuinn appealed the denial of his motion to vacate his rape and sodomy conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. McGuinn raised several claims: inadequate counsel, conviction based on perjured testimony, denial of compulsory process to obtain a witness, and an involuntary confession obtained through coercion. The appellate court reviewed the trial record and found each claim without merit. McGuinn was represented by experienced and diligent counsel. Regarding the perjury allegations, one involved testimony McGuinn could have challenged at trial but did not, constituting waiver, while the other involved a minor discrepancy in witness recollections about an immaterial detail. McGuinn's claim of being denied compulsory process failed because he never requested the witness be subpoenaed, and the physician's medical report was admitted as evidence anyway. Finally, McGuinn's challenge to his signed statement should have been raised at trial; the statement was adequately explored during trial proceedings and was supported by both officer and defendant testimony indicating its voluntariness.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Adequacy of trial counsel representation
Perjured testimony and waiver by failure to challenge at trial
Right to compulsory process and availability of substitute evidence
Voluntariness of signed confession and procedural forfeiture

Procedural posture

McGuinn appealed from a district court order denying his § 2255 motion to vacate a conviction previously affirmed by the appellate court in 1951.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

BASTIAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate sentence, and for other relief.

Appellant’s conviction for rape and sodomy was affirmed by this court in 1951. McGuinn v. United States, 89 U.S. App.D.C. 197, 191 F.2d 477. That appeal disposed of several points urged in the instant motion. These contentions were disposed of adversely to appellant and are not now available as grounds for vacating his sentence under § 2255.

The remaining points raised in appellant’s motion are that he was denied adequate representation by counsel, that his conviction was effected by the use of perjured testimony, that he was denied compulsory process to obtain a witness, and that he was induced by the police to incriminate himself by the use of “alcohol drugs” and “emotional exhaustion.”

We have reviewed the record of the trial. This record demonstrates that appellant had experienced, competent counsel, whose representation of appellant was adequate, and that counsel was diligent in his defense of appellant.

The first allegation of perjury concerned a government witness who testified as to the complainant’s emotional state following the alleged offense. Appellant tells us that this witness lied when she testified that she did not know him. If that testimony was false, appellant knew it at the trial but made no attempt to demonstrate it by cross examination, by his own testimony or by that of rebutting witnesses, who were as readily available then as now. Appellant must be regarded as having waived this objection. The other allegation of perjury, having to do with the position of the coat of appellant, involves a not unusual situation where witnesses’ recollections differ as to immaterial matters.

The contention that appellant was denied compulsory process to obtain the testimony of a physician who had examined the complaining witness is likewise without merit. Appellant was not denied compulsory process as he never asked that the witness be subpoenaed. Further, the medical report of this physician was admitted in evidence on behalf of appellant and was a reasonable substitute for the physician’s testimony, in view of the fact that he was in California at the time of the trial. There is no claim that the testimony of the witness would have been different from the statement admitted in evidence.

With respect to the contention that the signed statement executed by appellant was extorted, this matter should have been raised at the trial but the statement was not attacked, either there or on the appeal from his conviction.

The circumstances surrounding the execution of that statement were inquired into at trial by both the government and defense counsel. Nothing in the testimony of the officer who procured it was contradicted; and that testimony, which was corroborated by appellant’s testimony, indicates that the statement was admissible. In any event, no objection to the statement having been uttered at trial or on the appeal therefrom, it seems clear that it is now too late to raise this point.

The order appealed from must be and is

Affirmed.

. This is the latest of a number of similar motions.

. These points are, in essence: error in the admission of evidence; erroneous charges given to the jury; charges requested by appellant and improperly refused by the trial court; and insufficient evidence to support a conviction.

. The complainant is said to have testified that appellant threw his coat onto the back seat of the car used in connection with the alleged crime, while the arresting officer is said to have testified that he found the coat neatly folded on the back seat of the car.