KEENAN
v.
BURKE, WARDEN; JANKOWSKI V. BURKE, WARDEN; AND FOULKE V. BURKE, WARDEN

U.S. | 1951-11-26
Nos. 80; No. 81; No. 82
Dissenting memorandum filed by Mr. Justice Minton.
342 U.S. 881 Supreme Court of the United States (1951) Caution
Cited by 6 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:

Per Curiam:

The judgments are reversed. Townsend v. Burke, 334 U. S. 736.

Dissenting memorandum filed by Mr. Justice Minton.

Dissent
Mr. Justice Minton,

Memorandum by

Mr. Justice Minton,

dissenting.

These cases only illuminate the error of this Court in Townsend v. Burke, 334 U. S. 736. I would not compound the error. I would overrule Townsend rather than send these petitioners back to be proceeded against nicely. Their guilt is not questioned. 'They say, “If we had only had a lawyer, maybe we would not have received such long sentences.” Yet, the sentencing judge gave two of the petitioners much shorter terms than the maximum provided by statute. They complain not so much of the sentences they received but the manner in which they received them.

Admit the sentencing judge wás facetious, even that he bulldozed the petitioners — he sentenced them all within the limits authorized by law. Maybe .the judge’s conduct called for a curtain lecture. At most, that was a matter for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and that court did not see even an error of state law in the judge’s conduct, let alone a federal constitutional question. We sit only to determine federal constitutional questions, not to scold state trial judges. It is utterly incomprehensible to ine how a judge can commit a denial of federal due process by being facetious in the sentencing of defendants where the sentences he imposes are within the limits prescribed by statute. I would affirm.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Smith v. United States, 223 F.2d 750 (5th Cir. 1955)
    …ed by counsel and the sentence was imposed by the trial judge under the mistaken belief that the defendant was guilty of other crimes. Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690; followed in Keenan v. Burke (Foulke v. Burke), 342 U.S. 881, 72 S.Ct. 162, 96 L.Ed. 661. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment protects those convicted in the federal courts no less than that of the Fourteenth Amendment protects those convicted in the state courts. If, as the motion alleges, the def…
  • Lipscomb v. United States, 273 F.2d 860 (8th Cir. 1960)
    …the court specifically stated that it did not know what, if any, attention the courts would pay to its action in the instant case. Great reliance is placed by counsel for defendant on Smith v. United States, 5 Cir., 223 F. 2d 750; Keenan v. Burke, 342 U.S. 881, 72 S.Ct. 162, 96 L.Ed. 661; and Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690. As pointed out by us in Young v. United States, supra, the cases are readily distinguishable in their facts from the case at bar. In each of the cited ca…
    1 / 2
  • Young v. United States, 259 F.2d 641 (8th Cir. 1958)
    …and materially false, which the prisoner had no opportunity to correct by the services which counsel would provide”, as to make the sentencing proceedings lacking in due process. 334 U.S. at page 741, 68 S.Ct. at page 1255. See also Keenan v. Burke, 342 U.S. 881, 72 S.Ct. 162, 96 L.Ed. 661; Smith v. United States, 5 Cir., 223 F. 2d 750, 754. But the sentencing proceedings here in no way fall within the injustice underlying or the condemnation made in the cases cited. Appellants, as has been pointed out, an…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw