District Court, W.D. Missouri — appointed by John F. Kennedy
Palmentere v. United States
District Court, W.D. Missouri · 2001-01-01 · cited 2×
This case involved four petitions for writs of coram nobis filed by individuals convicted under the Prohibition Act in the 1920s and 1930s, challenging those convictions on the ground that they were obtained without counsel or a knowing waiver of the right to counsel, prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. Zerbst. The court held that the petitioners had the right to raise these claims via coram nobis and that the convictions were invalid under the Sixth Amendment as interpreted in Johnson v. Zerbst and later cases like Argersinger v. Hamlin, which require counsel for any offense resulting in imprisonment absent a proper waiver. The court found that the petitioners met their burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to show the absence of counsel and waiver, leading it to vacate the guilty pleas, convictions, judgments, and sentences in each case. The reasoning emphasized that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel acts as a jurisdictional bar to valid convictions when violated and that old convictions obtained in violation of these standards may be corrected through this extraordinary remedy.
criminal lawprocedurecivil rights
Fletcher v. Armontrout
District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1990-03-07 · cited 11×
This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by a Missouri prisoner challenging his conviction, where prior certification of questions about state post-conviction remedies to the Missouri Supreme Court was declined. The federal district court directs further proceedings requiring the petitioner to file a Missouri Rule 91 state habeas corpus petition in the Court of Appeals, Western District, and if necessary the Missouri Supreme Court, to determine whether an available state corrective process exists under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c). The core reasoning rests on principles of comity and federalism, along with the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in White v. State indicating that state habeas remains available as a post-conviction remedy despite Rule 29.15, to ensure any federal claims receive a full and fair hearing in state court before federal jurisdiction is exercised.
criminal lawprocedurefederal power
G.L. v. Zumwalt
District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1990-02-20
This case involves plaintiffs' motion to hold defendants in contempt for alleged failures to comply with consent decrees previously entered in a dispute over state administration of child welfare programs in Missouri. The court has not yet ruled on the contempt request or the related motion for extension of time, instead directing further proceedings to develop a more detailed record. The opinion explains that consent decrees are enforceable through the court's contempt powers under 18 U.S.C. § 401, but emphasizes that enforcement must follow the least intrusive means and that the decree itself requires plaintiffs to first notify defendants of specific areas of noncompliance and attempt informal resolution. The court notes that the current motion provides only conclusory allegations rather than the particularized showing needed to proceed, and it references Supreme Court precedent requiring careful, step-by-step consideration before imposing sanctions.
civil rightsfamily lawprocedure
Brown v. MISSOURI BD. OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1989-12-08 · cited 10×
This case concerns a state prisoner's second federal habeas corpus petition under Section 2254 challenging the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole's rescission of an unexecuted parole grant without notice or an opportunity to be heard, which the petitioner claims violated due process. The petition had previously been dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, but new exhibits from state court filings, including a habeas petition to the Missouri Supreme Court that was summarily denied and a related Missouri Court of Appeals decision finding a liberty interest deprived without due process, raised the question of whether exhaustion had now occurred. The court concluded that the record must be expanded under Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to obtain additional materials necessary to determine whether the petitioner has exhausted available state postconviction remedies before further proceedings on the federal claim.
criminal lawprocedurecivil rights
Fletcher v. Armontrout
District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1989-11-13 · cited 6×
This case involves a state prisoner's federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction. The district court identified unresolved questions of Missouri law about whether Rule 29.15 precludes state courts from exercising their constitutional habeas jurisdiction under Rules 91 and related provisions, and whether the petitioner had available state postconviction remedies that must be exhausted before federal review. To resolve these issues before proceeding, the court certified three questions to the Supreme Court of Missouri concerning the interpretation of Rule 29.15, the prohibition on suspending habeas corpus in the Missouri Constitution, and the availability of appellate habeas relief.
criminal lawprocedure
Richardson v. Miller
District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1989-09-13 · cited 2×
The case is a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by a state prisoner challenging his conviction based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his guilty plea. After previously denying dismissal and ordering a supplemental response with state court transcripts and exhibits, the court reviewed those materials and concluded that appointment of counsel for the petitioner was required under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) because the interests of justice so demanded. The court directed appointed counsel to confer with the petitioner and prepare a report recommending what further proceedings, if any, should follow under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, stressing the need for complete factual records before determining whether an evidentiary hearing or other disposition is warranted.
criminal lawprocedure