From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bradford v. Johnson

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Mar 28, 1973
476 F.2d 66 (6th Cir. 1973)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that defendant's rights were violated by government's "knowing use of coerced testimony obtained by torture, threats and abuse of a witness"

Summary of this case from State v. Baum
See 4 Summaries

Opinion

No. 72-1905.

Argued February 8, 1973.

Decided March 28, 1973.

Stewart H. Freeman, Asst. Sol. Gen., for respondent-appellant; Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Mich., on brief.

David R. Hood, Detroit, Mich., Court-appointed, for petitioner-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Before EDWARDS and McCREE, Circuit Judges, and YOUNG, District Judge.

The Honorable Don J. Young, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from the granting of a writ of habeas corpus presents the question whether a person convicted by a state's knowing use of coerced testimony obtained by torture, threats and abuse of a witness is in custody in violation of his Constitutional right to due process of law. We answer this question in the affirmative and affirm the judgment of the District Court for the reasons stated in its opinion reported at 354 F. Supp. 1331.

Affirmed.

Summaries of

Bradford v. Johnson

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Mar 28, 1973
476 F.2d 66 (6th Cir. 1973)

holding that defendant's rights were violated by government's "knowing use of coerced testimony obtained by torture, threats and abuse of a witness"

Summary of this case from State v. Baum

affirming trial court's decision that defendant had "constitutional ground" to seek suppression of another's coerced confession and concluding suppression of coerced confession necessary to "comport[] with a concept of fairness and civility, namely, due process of law"

Summary of this case from United States v. Anderson

Recognizing that under normal circumstances the issue of credibility is one which the jury can weigh as a matter of fact, the court found that the testimony of witness given at trial of defendant should not have been admitted because it was a product of torture and thus untrustworthy under due process standards

Summary of this case from Pinder v. State

In Bradford, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed "the granting of a writ of habeas corpus" where the petitioner's conviction resulted from the "state's knowing use of coerced testimony obtained by torture, threats and abuse of a witness is in custody."

Summary of this case from Washington v. Chapman
Case details for

Bradford v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:LIONEL BRADFORD, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, v. PERRY JOHNSON, WARDEN OF THE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Mar 28, 1973

Citations

476 F.2d 66 (6th Cir. 1973)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Campbell

While the Fifth Amendment right against compelled incrimination is a personal right and may not be asserted…

Wilcox v. Ford

There is no proof that Wrentz was incompetent to testify or that his in-court testimony was coerced. Cf.…

36 Citing Cases