xt7msb3wtd0h_46 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2.dao.xml unknown 166 Cubic Feet 381 document boxes, seven textile items, three map folders, one artwork archival material 72m2 English University of Kentucky The physical rights to the materials in this collection are held by the University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Frederick Moore Vinson papers Economic stabilization. Elections -- United States -- Congresses. Judges -- Correspondence. Judges -- United States. Judicial opinions Judicial process -- United States Legislators -- Correspondence. New Deal, 1933-1939. World War, 1914-1918 -- Veterans. World War, 1939-1945. Marino v. Ragen, Warden (per curiam) - no. 93 text Marino v. Ragen, Warden (per curiam) - no. 93 2019 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2/Box_185/Folder_1/Multipage5738.pdf 1947 1947 1947 section false xt7msb3wtd0h_46 xt7msb3wtd0h §uprrmv (Lauri uf tlgv 11mm: §tair5

, wasx'l‘mtgtun,D.Q; RECEIVED

CHAMBERS OF DEC '5 5 10 P" ’d?

JUSTICE WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS J 1‘ C '_
new" " ‘QTCWMJB’LR/s or m E
CHIEF JUSTICE

No. 93, Tiarino vs Eager:

775?UOT8.§"I1Um to the Grit—3f Jnsvtice:

 

T send from horo‘vfl t‘r‘: the full 59%; of the per cw“r*.a1'n in this
0:39 “xv-{rich 3,701: suwwesfied T draft. If it 1001:: allrif‘ht to an:
it hr; firm‘lated f‘ r0111 jrmjxr of???

‘ morn 7707‘ want We to do on

1'30 13% me 151107.

\fi

L Lair?)

“I 1111' 3717 f)”; h 301%}? .

1

A3312 012111th

 

 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 93.44 )("rom-jn TERM. 1947.
Tony Marino. Petitioner.
1‘. ()n Writ of (Wertiorari to Illi—
Joseph 16. I-tagen. Wartlen. unis (‘ircuit (hurt, Winne—
lllinois State I’eniten— IJ‘ng County. '
tiary. .Ioliet. Illinois.
[1)eeeiiihei‘4. 1047.]
I’m: (innit:

l’etitioner sought a writ of lmherls ear/ms in the ("ireuitt
(‘ourt ot' Winnehago (‘o' my. Illinois. alleging that his
eonx'ietion in 1923 on a eharge of murtler was the result
of a tlenial of his rights under the Fetleral (‘onstitutioir
That eourt. after a hearing. quashetl the, writ: antl as its
ot‘tler eannot he I'(‘\'l(‘\'\'(‘tl hy any higher Illinois eourt
Illltl(‘l' Illinois praetiee. this petition for a writ of certiorari
is properly arlrlressetl to that eourt. See, II'oorZs V.
Kim's/l)timer. 3:28 I'. S. ‘311; 15 I'. of Chic. L. Rev. 118,
132.

The l'aets eoneetlerl hy responrlent areas follows:

The (-ommon-law reeorrl reeites that petitioner was ar—
raignerl in open court aml adviser] through interpreters
ol' the meaning leltI ell'eet of a plea of guilty and that peti-
tioner signerl a statement waiving jury trial aml pleading
guilty. lie was senteneetl to life imprismnnent. It does
not appear. however. that an attorney was appointerl to
represent him, that—Wight fart signetl hy him.

.. oil-Hm plea of guilty was enteretl at the trial. He was
IS years oltl at that time illltl hatl been in this eount'ry only
two years. He tlltI not understand the English language
and it is (lonhtt'nl that he understood American trial court
proeerhire. 'l‘he arresting of‘lieer served as an interpreter
for pcti’tionei' at the original trial.

 

 93~PTCR (‘I'RIAM

:7 V MARINO r. Il;\(fil£.\l.;_

.7 v' ‘3“ ' - ' _

The AM'noyflLleneral ot' IllinoisE admits the foregoing
facts. confesses error. and consents to n reversnl of the
judgment l‘ielow. He stzites that the writ of /l(l[)("(l.\' cor—
pus is it proper remedy in Illinois in this case liecziuse the
facts. which he concedes to he :1 denial of due process of
law under the decisions of this (‘ourt, were known to the,
court ill the time of the original tl‘iill‘ though they were
not :i matter of record :it the triztl. Whether or not on
this showing; /Irll)(l'1.\' corpus is an appropriate remedy in
the court to correct :1 denial of due process is it question
of state law as to which we accept the concession of the
stztte‘s Attorney (lenerzil. W

In light of the confession of error (see l'oiuu/ \'. {Vii/ed
SIN/m. 31.") l'. S 237: [Mesa \'. ('iiz'lcr/ S/n/cs, 330 IV. S.
ltitl) nnd the undisputed facts. we conclude that peti-
tioner was denied the due process of law which the Four-
teenth Amendment requires.

l’ermission to proceed in forum paupcris is granted.

The petition for it writ of certiorztri is granted and the
judgment liclow is ww'fiedr;

 

 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITEB STATES
No. 93—00108in T131111, 1947.

Tony .‘1Iz’1rino. Petitioner.
1". On “Irit 01" (,‘ertiorari to the
Joseph E, R agen, “Yards”. (‘il‘C‘ui't (‘UIH‘t of “FIDUCIMZJ'O
Illinois State Feniten— Count}: Suite, ot'lllinois.
tiai'y, Joliet, Illinom

'Deeeiiihei '32 1‘4 7 i]
l. .

I‘iin (innit:

Petitioner sought a. writ of liabeas towns in the (‘irenit
Ii'innelnigo County. Illinois. zillegi n L“ that his

1

(out of"
eom'ietion in 1‘32.) 011 a charge of inindei 11 ‘81:. the result
of :1 denial of his rights under the Federal Constitution.
That court, after a hearing". Quashed the writ; and as iIS
order ennnot lite reviewed by any higher Illinois court

tindei Illinois 11 inetice. this petition for {‘1 Writ of certiornri
is properly addressed to that court. F‘ee ll'ooe’s V'.
Niers‘ffim‘mer. .323 II. 57'. 211; 1.3 II. of Chic. L. Rev. 118,
122.

The t'zseis eoneeded by respondent are as follows:

The eonnnon—law reeot'd recites that petitioner \1: s :11-
1':‘:i-'.1'ned in open eo‘zrt tmnl advised through interpretms
ott he, 1110111131111: and effect of ti plea 0t '1tii1tV andt t1’1‘1ti—
tionm siened :11 sta-ernent 111111119 llllf' trial {111dpl<-1‘1‘1dinr;.~
guilt-1r. He 11:15 senteneed to life 1111p; isonnient. It< does
not uppen 11' however. that, ill] attornej,‘ was {1171pointe ed to
r0111 ‘\ “5502‘: 1 him. The waiver was not in fact shined lijv nizn.
one no pl 1:1. of {guilty was entered {it the tried. He 11:18
I F j’e 113 old: 1ttl121t time and had bee n in t11is eorntrv onl1
two years. Ile, did not undewt 11nd the 411.1.‘1l1sl l:1‘11‘1 1.1510
1s. 1d it is doi l)iilll that he understood .\1ner2ie in iri1il (:01 rt,

oeed 11'<1.The ariesting officer srned 21.5 an interpreter
<11 n<1titione1 M the ori<1inal txizd.

I”
i

 

 ENE—PER CTRIAM
MARINO r. RAGTCN.

The E'tzite ol‘ lllinois speed. :4 throw; .‘~_ttornej.'
(i-Z‘11(‘i‘:tl admits the foregoing {zit-ts. t'on'l'eSSL-E: error. and
eonsents to a reversal of the judgment helon'. He swites'
:hnt the writ of liabras (“CU/Ht? l8 3. proper remedy in Illi—
nois in this ease because the tits whieh he eenz-eult-s to
he :1 denial of due process of law under the derix‘ions of
this (fonrt. were l:no‘\\.'n to the eourt :1: the time of the
original trial. thou-1h they were not a matter of record
zit the trial. Whether or not on this Showing lichens
rot-pus is an appropriate remedy in the must to eot‘rect

n deniul ol' dne proeess is, a question of :xnte law as

to whit-h we accept the concession of the State's i‘ittornev
(lever: l.
In light of the confession of error {see Young; Y. [Hitter]
States. 315 I'. S. 237; 130.2220 V. (Waited Males, 336‘; If. F.
$B \fl) and the nndizpnted l'uetkj. we eonelnde that peti-
fim V. tioner was denied the due proeeSS of Mr" :h the l<

M teenth Amendment requires.
TE ; <5 _ _
vfl—‘x‘ ‘_\ oq‘iS’

Permission to proceed in forma paupn'z's is , . .
Létg [1.3. 593 The petition for {1 writ of certiorari is granted and th.
judgment below is vaezited and remanded to the (fit-cur
Court.
SO ordered.

 

 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 93.——OCTOBER TERM. 10:17.

Tony )iIarino, Petitioner.
”0- On Writ of (‘ertiorari to the
Joseph E. Ragen. Warden. Circuit Court of Winnebago
Illinois State Peniten- County. State of Illinois.
tiary, Lloliet, Illinois.

[December 22. 1947i

P151: ("i‘iiiAMz

Petitioner sought a writ of [whens cor/ms in the Circuit
Court of \Vinneliago County. Illinois. alleging that his
cmiviction in 1925 on a charge of murder was the result
of a denial of his rights under the Federal Constitution.
That court. after a hearing. quashed the, writ: and as its
order cannot be. reviewed by any higher Illinois court
under Illinois practice. this petition for a writ of ce‘tiorari
is properly addressed to that court. See ll'ooa’s V.
Nierxt’l/cimcr, :18 I'. L“ 211; 15 I'. of Chic. L. Rev. 118,
122.

The facts conceded by respondent are as follows:

The common—law record recites that petitioner was ar—
raigned in open court and advised through interpreters
of the meaning; and effect of a plea of guilty and that peti—
tioner signed a statement waiving: jury trial and pleading
guilty. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. It, does
not appear. however. that an attorney was appointed to
represent him. The waiver was no”: in fact signed by him.
and no plea of guilty was entered at the trial. He was
18 years old at that time and had been in this country only
two years. He did not understand the English language
and it is doubtful that he understood American trial court
procedure. The arresting; oflicer served as an interpreter
for petitioner at the original trial.

 

 93 PER C‘I‘RIAM
MARINO 1‘. RAGEN.

The State of Illinois speaking through the 1‘1ttorney
General admits the foregoing; facts. confesses error. and
consents to a reversal of the judgment beiow. He states
that the writ of liabeas corpus- is a proper remedy 111 Uli—
nois 111 this case because the facts. which he concedes to
he a denial of due process of law under the decisions of
this Court, were known to the court at the time of the
(,11'ig1nal trial. though their were not a matter of record
at the trial. Whether or not on this showing lmbcas
('Hl'pllR is an appropriate remedy 111 the court to correct
a denial of due process is a question of state law as
to which we accept the concession of the state's Attorney
General.

In light of the confession of error (see Young 1'. (Vii/fed
States, 315 TC. H. 2.37; Boast: 1'. Furled States, 330 If. S.
w) and the undisputed facts. we conclude that peti—
tioner was denied the due process of law which the Four-
teenth Amendment requires.

Pernnssion to proceed 111 fornm [mupm‘fs is granted.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the
jndmnent below is_\':1cated and I‘Clltt 11ded to the ('11'cuit
('ourt.

So on! cred .

 

 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 93,—OCTOBER TERM. 1947.

Tony Marino. Petitioner,
21- On Writ of Certiorari to the
Joseph E. Ragen. Warden, Circuit Court of Winnebago
Illinois State Peniten— County. State of Illinois.
tiary, Joliet. Illinois.

[December 22. 1.047.]

Pin: Ci‘nIAM:

Petitioner sought a writ of liabcas corpus in the Circuit
Court of Winnebago County. Illinois. alleging that his
conviction in 1025 on a charge of murder was the result
of a denial of his rights under the Federal Constitution.
That cour . after a hearing. quashed the writ: and as its
order cannot be reviewed by any higher Illinois court
under Illinois practice. this petition for a writ of certiorari
is, properly addressed to that court. See Woods v.
Niel-sill(If/Her, 328 If. S. 211; 1.3 1-. of Chic. L. Rev. 118,
122.

The facts conceded hy respondent are as follows:

The common-law record recites that petitioner was ar—
raignml in open court and advised through interpreters
of the, meaning and effect of a pl 3a of guilty and that peti—
tioner signed a statement waiving jury trial and pleading
guilty. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. It does
not appear. however. that an attorney was appointed to
represent him. The waiver was not in fact signed by him.
and no plea of guilty was entered at the trial. He was
18 years old at that time and had b ten in this country only
UH) years. He did not understand the English language
and it is douhtful that he understood American trial court
procedure. The arresting officer served as an interpreter
for petitioner at the original trial.

 

 93 PER C‘I’RIAM
MARINO ‘1). RAGEN.

The State of Illinois speal'ingz through the Attorney
General admits the foregoing: facts. confesses error. and
consents to a reversal of the judgment below. He states
that the writ of babe/18 cor/ms is a proper remedy in Illi—
nois in this case because the facts. which he concedes to
he a denial of due process of law under the decisions of
this ('ourt. were known to the court at the time of the
original trial. though they were not a matter of record
at the trial. Whether or not on this showingr liabms
("or/ms is an appropriate remedy in the court to correct
a denial of due process is a question of state law as
to which we accept the concession of the state‘s Attorney
(leneral.

In light of the confession of error (see Young Y. (’nited
Sin/ex, 313 [C S. 237; 1302'.er V. [United States, 330 l'. S.
ltst) .and the, undisputed facts. we conclude tha peti-
tioner was denied the due process of law which the Four—
teenth Amendment requires.

Permission to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the
judgment below is vacated and remanded to the (‘ircuit

(‘ourt.
S0 ordered .

 

 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

N0. 93.—OCTOBER TERM. 1947.

Tony Marine. Petitioner.
1’- On Writ of C‘ertiorari to the
Joseph E. Ragen. “Yarden. Circuit Court of Winnebago
Illinois State Peniten— County. State of Illinois.
tiarv, Joliet, Illinois.

[December 22. 1047.]
Pun C‘t’iumr:

Petitioner sought a writ of lzcbcas corpus in the Circuit,
Court of ll'innehagjo County. Illinois, alleging that his
conviction in 1925 on a charge of murder was the result
of a denial of his rights under the Federal Constitution.
That court. after a hearing. quashed the writ; and as its
order cannot be reviewed by any higher Illinois court
under Illinois practice. this petition for a writ of certiorari
is properly addressed to that court. Fee ll'ooe’s v.
Xicrs/hrimcr. 328 If. \. ‘211; 15 IV. of Chic. L. Rev. 118,
122.

The facts conceded by respondent are as follows:

The common-law record recites that petitioner was ar—
raigined in open court and advised through interpreters
ot' the meaning" and effect of a plea of guilty and that peti—
tioner signed a statement waiving jury trial and pleading
guilty. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. It does
not appear. however. that an attorney was appointed to
represent him. The waiver was not in tact Siglanlil hy him.
and no pl ‘a of guilty was entered at the trial. He was

8 fears old at that time and had been in this country only
two years. He did not understand the English language
and it is doubtful that he understood American trial court
procedure. The arresting officer served as an interpreter
for petitioner at the original trial.

 

 93—77131} Cl'RlAM
MARINO v. RAGEN.

The State, of Illinois speaking through the Attorney
General admits the foregoing facts. eont‘esscs error. and
consents to a reversal of the judgment helow. He states
that the writ of llabms corpus is a proper reinedjv in lili-
nois in this ease because the facts. whieii he eoueedes to
he a denial of due process of law under the deeisions of
this (hurt. were, known to the court at the time of the
original trial. though they were not a matter of reeord
at the trial. Vthether or not on this showingr lmheas
row/ms- is 311 appropriate remedy in the eonrt m eorr et
a denial of due process is a question of state law as
to whieh we accept the concession of the state's .‘tttorney
General.

In light of the confession of error (see Young Y. Z'Iritt‘d
Sin/(7s, 31.3 l'. S. 257; Bozza V. [Miter] Slates. 330 U. 53.
1m.) and the undisputed facts. we eonelnde that peti—
tioner was denied tire due process of law whieli the Four—
teenth Amendment requires.

Permission to proceed in forum pauperis is granted.

The )etition for a writ of certiorari is ”ranted and the
a

judgment helow is Vt eated and remanded to the Circuit

(hurt.

So ordered.

 

 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

1
1

N0. 93.—OCToBE11 T121111. 104

Tony Marino. Petitioner.

0- O11 Writ. of ’1 'ti01'111'i to 1119
1391111 111111111911 1111111911 Circuit (‘01: 1'1 ot \\ 1111193111110
llh 111ois State P911it911— (‘01111t12‘1‘11111901 l1linois
tim'y, Joliot. Illinois.

.0}

[13(9911119' 22. 191]"
P1111 (‘1,‘111.\.\1:

l )91i11<;-1191' sought a V-‘iit of [MIL/’08 9.1;(1' us in the C‘ir L
(01.11, 01 \ i11119ha<10 ChOlllllj' Illinois. alleging; that his
9o11‘.‘i9tio11 in 1‘)? 1 011 21 91131119 of 111111'1‘1'1' 1.115: the 1'95'1lt
0111 d91’1i111 0 [his riOhts 111119111119. Fed 11'11l (011“:1tl'l10ll
Tlmt 1101111. 511191‘ :1. hrrnring' quashed the writ: and. as its
o1'd91' r::’111110t he 1'9\ie\19d by any l1.i51."11(.1rllli11oi.~3 (01'1't
1111d1'11'lllinois practice. this petition f011 \' 1it of 1'ti01:1ri
is 11191191'11' . ddressed to that 901;1't.f\‘9e U 000’s: Y.
.\'/1'1.1':s'1".111111,119.1232% I". 9211;15 1 01 C‘l119.L R9\'.118.
10'2-

The t11t1t::co11.99de1'l by respond9nt are as follows:

.‘tl 19 90111111011—11111' record reoites that petitioner was 211'—
1'21'11211111'1 in 011911 (“ourt {111d 5'11‘1\'i59d tl11'o'151'h interpreters
01 111911;:1111111111'1111119f‘199tofn1119111ofL111iltvz1ndthat1191i-
ti<11191'si5.1.'1191l.z1 5111191119111 1111111115; jury 11131111111 planting
guilty. H9 was 991119119911 10 lit-:1 1.111111180111119111. It dons
not 0111191112howm'er. thnt an mtorn9y Wits 21111510111191! to
191111219111 him. The 1'11i'1'91'932131101 in [31-1-1 si11g119rl by him.
and no pl9'11 of guilty was 911t91'9d at the trial. H9 ‘1. is
1K y9f1‘1‘s old 211' that 1111119211111hadhoonintl‘1i511o1111t1'y oan
two 51191119. H9 did not understand tho Engrh ish 11.111.11'11' 1119
1111:! it if; doubtful that he understood 1‘111191‘i9nn 11in! conrt
111‘099di11'9. The :11'1'9sti11g' ofli99r sorvod as 1111 i11191'111'9191'
for 119111101191‘ at the original trial.

 

 93 PER ("TRIAM
MARIKO r. RACE);

The .‘tzito of lllinois speaking-j through the Attorney
(lenvrul admits the forwoin}: f‘iCtS. atmf'ossos vrrur, nnrl
consents to a revorsal of tho jn< grant lx‘lwx. H? stains
that tho writ of habms t'orpus is :1 proper roznmiy in illi—
nois; in this case because the facts. WhiCh he emu-(wins to
ho a denial of due process of law nntler the (lot-’33
this (,‘oan war? known to the court at tho iilili‘ of
original trial. though they were not a matter at" rocortl
at the rial. Whether or not on this sl‘zovsing I’mhwzs
win/ms is (In appropriate rmiim’ly in the court to (‘Ol'l'i‘i'l
a (leiiiul ol' {lus- pror—Gss is a question of sttitc‘ .;1\\' 22s
to whit-h we : t-Ccpt the concession of the stators Attorney
General.
in light of the confession of error (s99 Young \'. [VIII/(WI
States, 3L3 ii. 4. '37; B V. <.
1130) 21ml the initlispntet '
'M V- \ tionor was denied the due proco.
UMH‘CA 3mg teonth Animitlinent requires.

' Permission to proceed in forma pawn/7'8 i.

2T8 “-3. 59 37 The petition for a writ of ccrtiorari is grantml
.lmltifinz‘nt below is vacated filltl reinantlml to tho Circuit
Court.

‘90 o’rdi‘rml.

 

 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No, 93.—OC’1‘OBER TERM, 1947.

Tony Marino. Petitioner.
D. On Writ of (.‘ertiorari to the
Joseph F Hagen. “'arden, Circuit Court of \‘v'innehago

Illinois State Peniten— County. State of Illinois.

tiary. Joliet, llinois.

[December 212. 19—17.]
I’m C‘t‘ntmt:

Petitioner sought a writ of liabeas corpus, in the Circuit
(‘onrt ot' Winnebago County. Illinois. alleging that his
convietion in 1925 on a charge of murder was the result
of a denial of his rights under the Federal Constitution.
That court. after a hearing, quashed the writ: and as its
order cannot he reviewed by any higher Illinois court
under lllinois practice. this petition for a writ of certiorari
is properly addressed to that court. See ll'ooa’s v.
37cm!lief/Her. 328 Iv. S. 211; 15 II. of Chic. L. Rev. 118.
122.

The facts conceded by respondent are as follows:

The connnon—law record recites that petitioner was ar—
raigned in open court and advised through interpreters
of the meaning)‘ and effect of a plea of guilty and that peti—
tioner signed a statement waiving jur}r trial and pleading:
guilty. He was sentenced to life iniprismnnent. It does
not appear. however. that an attornev was appointed to
represent him. The, waiver was not in fact signed by him.
and no plea of guilty was entered at the trial. He was
1% years old at that time and had been in this country only
two vears. He did not understand the English language
and it is donhtful that he understood American trial court
procedure. The arresting otlieer served as an interpreter
for petitioner at the original trial.

 

 93»—PER C‘I'RIAM
MARINO l'. RAGEN.

The State of Illinois speaking" through the Attorney
General admits the foregoing i'ncts. confesses error. and
consents to :1 reversal of the judgment helow. He states
that the writ of ltabcas corpus is at proper twinnedjc in llli—
nois in this case because the facts. which he conceucs to
be :1 denial of due process of law under the decisions of
this (‘onrt were known to the court at the time of the
01 iprinztl trinl. though they were not it mutter of record
at the trinl. Whether or not on this showing lmbcus
corpus is an appropriate remedy in the court to correct
a denial of due process is a question of state law as
to whim we accept the concession of the stzttels Attorney
General.
In light of the confession of error (see Young V. (Voted
Slates, 315 l'. S. 257: 130220 Y. T'm't‘cd States, 330 l7. \.
t w and the undisputed facts. we conclude that peti—
3-?)031‘25: Vt tioner was denied the due. process of law which the Four—

l S t ' . .
l , ‘(‘§
WVECQ 8.1.01? S, tCCIIlil -tllll-(‘lltllllPllt quult V . . ‘
I'Cl'llllSSlOll TO DI'OCQGd 111 f()]‘7}I(l [)(lllpf’l't‘s IS granted.

9’48 “3 ~ ng The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the
judgment below is vacated and remanded to the (fircuit
Court.

So ordered.

 

 PER CURIAM

rim-v T‘TT’T‘ rr-"T‘
iflE UL)..__L.:_Iu

 

C4
r“,
P

( 0
Fly

.A 1 A
CLamOurs

 

TONY'MARINO

V.

:nTt' “'1- FT‘W""

(JD 1:: .L‘gfi'l'.

JOSEPH E. RAGEN, WARDEN,

Rmo‘jr‘v‘ic“

 

C I R
1’51; .ul’fii "C 12/18

fl‘TFE7 2 I}?

 

H
9%:

n; no .0 to an I. an up no p. at a. A. v- on

a:

12/1§/h7
:12/1a/h7
:12/18/h7
Emnglas . ng/lB/h?

Agree
Concurring
Opinion

no
a. In on an

 

Agree*

Agree

m on up no I. a. an n. I.

Kurphy

Jacksan

 

o
u

o
c
.

o

o
a
u
.
a
0

g

u
o
a
u
n
.
o
a

In a. on a. on

‘F' ‘. 1 ,«r
fi‘wt J.(,,di::x

 

In :0 so to o. I. n» no 0- .n no In u an .- on

u. a: a. a. In on no In a. na '7 an

no on

:12/18/h7

 

suggestions.

 

 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES:

No.(.l3.7()("roni-:n'l‘iQnAI.1947.

Tony _\Iarino. Pt‘titimlt‘l'.
I'. ()n Writ of (‘t‘rtiorari to Illi-
.IoSt‘ltll ll. Hagen. Wax-11m. nois (‘irt-uit ('ourt, Winne-
Illinois Stzm‘ Pvniton- hagM'ounty.
tiary. .loliot. Illinois.

[Doconihcr 7, 1047.]
I’r11:('1'I:L\.\t:

l’tltitionvr sought a writ of halu'nx- (or/ms- in ‘(IN‘ (‘irt'uit
(‘ourt of \\'i|nn‘l>a§:o (‘ounty Illinois. alleging that his
('onvirtion in 1927) on a «harm of murder was the result
of a tlt‘llitll of his rights HIHIH‘ tlw I’mlvral (‘onStitutioiL
That (-onrt. :it'tvr a ht'aring'. (luashml thv writ zantl as its
()I‘tlt'l' (‘annot lw ]‘(‘\'I(‘\\'(‘rl by any higher Illinois ('ourt
iiinlm‘ Illinois {)I‘tu‘llt't‘. this petition for a writ of (‘e’trtiorari
is prolwrly arlrlrvsswl to that (-ourt. SOC II'oor/S V.
Ni: I‘N'I/H Ill/(’I', 325' I'. S. 211; 1.3 I'. of Chic. L. Rev. 118,
1‘22. '

'I’la‘ lat-ts ('(tltt't‘tlt‘tl hy 1‘(‘f\'])0l1tlt‘lti are as follows:

’I‘lw «onnnon-law I't‘t'ttl‘tl t't‘t‘IH‘S that pvtitionttr was ar—
raianwl in upon ('ot'rt anrl atlvisml through intorprott‘rs
of tho moaning anrl vtl'm-t ot' a [)lt‘tl of guilty and that peti-
tiotwr sluinwl a statmnvnt waiving: jury trial anrl pleading
guilty. Ilo was st'ntmn'ml to lilo intprisoinnent. It does
not apnmr. howvwr. that an attornov was appointed to
rt'prosvnt hint. that tllt‘ waiver was in favt signed l)_V hint.
or that a [tlt‘tt of guilty was (interwl at the trial. He was
15’ yt‘ars' oltl at that tinw antl hatl lawn in this (‘()111111'_\' only
two wars. IIt‘ (litl not lllltlt‘l'Sllllltl the English language
anrl it is rlotrhtt'nl that ho untlvrstootl American trial court
Itl'ttt‘t‘tll'l't‘. 'I‘h \ arrvsting' (tilit'm‘ svrrml as an interpreter
for pt‘titionttr at tht: original trial.

 

 93~PICR (‘I'RIAM
MARINO z'. RAUEN.

The Attorney (teneral of Illinois admits the foregoing
facts. confesses error. and consents to a reversal of the
judgment ltelow. He states that the writ of lutbcus cor—
pus- is a proper remedy in Illinois in this case because the
faets which he concedes to he a denial of due process of
law under the decisions of this (‘ourt. were known to the
court at the time of the original trial. though they were.
not a matter of record at the trial. Whether or not on
this showing: lmlwm mrpus- is an appropriate remedy in
the court to correct a denial of due process is a question
of state law as to which we, accept the concession of the
states Attorney ( }eneral.

In light of the confession of error (see l'oiutg/ \'. Fluted
NIH/(x. 31.") l'. S. 2.37: ltuzzu \'. (Vii/er] Slalm, 330 l'. \.
113m and the undisputed facts. we conclude that peti—
tioner was denied the due process of law which the Four-
teenth Mnendment requires.

Permission to proceed in forum putt/)crt's is granted.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the
judgment below is reversed.

[1)0 L‘C/‘SCd.

 

 mmomch

mg a _N E m: .3

ox>zmmmm 9.. aIm
oEmmgcmjom

 

 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No.{I23._(_)e'roni-;n'l‘i-znxi.1947.
Tony Marino. I’etitiouer.
1'. (hi Writ of (‘ertiorari to Illi—
Joseph I‘I. Iiagen. Warden. nois (‘ireuit Court, Winne-
Illinois State I’eniten- hagoC‘ounty.
tiary, .Ioliet. Illinois.

[_ Deeeniher ~. 1947?]

I’i-1i:(‘t'i:i.\_\i:

l’etitioner sought a writ of /HII1(‘/'I.\‘ (‘U)'/)Il.\' in the ('ireuit-
('oan of \Vinnehago (polity. Illinois. alleging that his
eonyietion in 192.") on a eharge ot' murtler was the result
of a rlenial of his rights untler the Federal (‘onstitutioir
'l‘liat eourt. alter a hearing. quashetl the writ: ilIltl as its
ot'tler eannot he reyiewetl liy any higher Illinois court
unrler Illinois praetiee. this petition for a writ of eertiorari
is properly addressed to that eonrt. See II'oot/s \'.
.\'/e/'s/lain/er, 3‘28 I'. S. 211; 13 I'. of (‘hie L. )LCV. 118,
123.

The l'aets eoneetlerl l>y respoinlent areas Follows:

'l‘he eonnnon-Iaw reeorrl reeites that petitioner was. ar—
raigned in open eot'rt antl iltl\'I.\'(‘tl through interpreters
ol' the meaning antl ell'eet of a plea of guilty ainl that peti-
tioner signetl a statement waiying jury trial and pl ‘arling
guilty. He was senteneetl to life imprisonment. It (loes
not appear. howeyer. that an attorney was appointetl to
represent him. that the waiver was in fact signetl hy hint.
or that a plea of guilty was enteretl at the trial. He was
I.\' years olrl at that time and hail been in this eonntry only
two years. He tlltl not unilerstanrl the ICnglish language
aml it is (lorhtt'el that he untlerstootl Aineriean trial court
proeethrre. The arresting ollit'er served as an interpreter
for petitioner at the original trial.

 

 Hafiz 14“ \ L utAAL

‘2 MAHINO r. RAUISN.

I/Ffi‘t‘t‘f‘x‘rt't‘ trite? <.t»no‘m*t“m--fitmr‘rs admits the foregoing:

t'aets. eont'esses error. and consents to a reversal of the
judgment l)(‘l()\\'. He states that the writ of habms [01'—
[Mix is a proper remedy in lllinois in this ease lieeanse the
tat-ts. wltieh he eoneedes to he a denial of due process of
law under the deeisions of this (‘onrt. were known to the
eonrt at the time of the original trial. though they were
not a matter of reeord at the trial. Whether or not on
this showing; /I(I[l(’rl.\' (or/22m is an appropriate remedy in
the eonrt to t-orreet a denial of dtie proeess is a question
of state law as to whieh we aeeept the concession of the
state's Attorney (leneral.

In light of the eont'ession of error (see Young \'. (Vat/ed
Slit/(w. 313 l'. S. 2.37: [313211 \'. (viii/Ml Sta/ex, 330 l'. 5.
ion) and the nndispnted fat-ts. we eonelnde that peti-
tioner was denied the due process of law which the Four-
teenth Amendment requires.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the
judgment below is reversed

Permission to proeeed in forum pauperis is granted

It’c versed.

n

- V
”K (Inf—4r“ ,

 

 mmomzmo

as 3 a 3 D: .&

nz>zmmmm on :2.”
nEmmEmjom

 

 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES-

No.€13._()1"roia-:n T111131, 1947.

Tony Marino. l’etitioner.
2'. - ()n \Vrit of (‘ertim‘ari to l'lli—
Joseph l3. tagen. Wartlen. nois (‘ireuit ('ourt, Winne—
lllinois State l’eniten- liago(‘ounty.
tiary. Juliet. lllinois.

[Dec-wither —, 1947.]

At’151:(‘1'1:1.\.\1:

l’etitioner sought a writ of hula/ix (tor/111x in the (‘irt'uit
(‘ourt ot' \Vinnehago (‘oztnty IllinoiS. alleging that his
eonvietion in “1:23 on a eharge of Illlll'tlt‘l‘ was the result
of a rlenial ot' his. rights under the Federal ('onstitution.
That eourt. after a hearing. quashetl the writ: aml as its
()l‘tlt‘l' eannot he I't‘Vit‘Wt‘tl liy any higher lllinois court
lllill(‘l' Illinois praetiee. this petition for a writ of certiorari
is properly athlresgetl to that eourt. Fee ll'om/s V'.
_\'/'(/'.\-//11 (mm: 32$ t'. S. 211; 1.3 1'. of ('hie. L. Rev. 118,
123.

The tat-ts ('()ll('(‘(l(‘tl l)_V responrlent are as follows:

The eomnion—law reeortl reeites that petitioner was ar—
I‘MiL‘llt‘tl in open (‘til‘l‘i aml arlvisml through interpreters
ot' the meaning ainl et't'eet ot' a plea of guilty ainl that peti-
ti11111‘1'>i1111t'rl a Sttlif‘lttt‘lll waiving jury trial amt pleading
guilty. lie was senteneerl to life imprisonment. lt (1008
not appear. however. that an attorney was appointed to
represent him. that the waiver was in I':1et,sig11etl liy him.
or that a plea of guilty was enteretl at the trial. He was
'18 years olrl at that time ainl harl been in this emuitryonly
two years. He (litl not untlerstantl the English language
{mil it is doubtful that he lllNlOI'HlUOtl American trial court
pi‘ot't‘tlure. 'l‘he arresting otlieer served as an interpreter
for petitioner at, the original trial.

 

 Udv—L 1'1“ \. L L\l_\:\l
)IXHINU l). BAUER:

The Attorney (it‘ltt‘l‘zll of Illinois tulinits the foregoing
fan-ts. contes‘ses error. zintl consents to {1 reversal of the
jutlg'inent helow. He states thnt the writ of habms cor—
pux is :1 proper reinerly in Illinois in this case because the
facts. which he concerles to he :1 (leniztl of due process of
lzl\\' untler the decisions of this (‘ourt. were, known to the
court :it the tune ot' the original trial. though they were
not :1 mutter of record at the trinl. Whether or not on
this showing" Int/mm row/nix is an appropriate renietly in
the court to correct :1 rleniztl of tlll(‘ process is a question
of state law :18 to which we accept the concession of the
State's Attorney ( lenernl.

In light of the confession of error (see l'muu/ V. {Vt/[led
Stu/4w, 313 l'. S, 337: [fuss/t \'. I'm-[w] NIH/(N. 330 I'. S.

ltittt zllttl the untlisputetl tau-ts. we conelutle that peti~
tiouer was rlenierl the tlue process of law which the Four-
teenth \tnentllnent requires.

l’erlnission to proceetl in forum pauper/x is grantetl.
The petition for n writ of certioruri is granted and the
jutlgnienl lit-low i5 rex‘et'sctl.

Ia’c versed.

 

 mmomzmo
EU a : $2.3:

nzbzmmmm 32m
$52522

 

 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 93.4 atom-1n TERM, 1947.

Tony Marino. Petitioner}
t
1‘. . (t In Writ of (‘ertiorari to Illi-
Joseph IiiHagen,\Varulen.[1 nois (‘irruit ('ourt. Winne-
l‘llinois State l’oniton—g bagoCouuty.
tiary. .Ioliet. Illinois. l

ll)oconrbor ——, 1947.]

I’m: ("t‘niwxiz

I’otitionor sought a writ of fir/Inns (or/ms in the (‘ireuit
(‘onrt ol' Winnebago Futility. Illinois. alleging that his
oonyietion in 192.”) on a oharge of nnn'rlor was the result
of a «lonial of his rights nnrlor the I‘Vorloral Constitution.
That eonrt. alter a hearing, quashetl the writ: antl as its
ortler earnmt bo reyiowotl by any higher Illinois court
nutlor Illinois praetioe, this petition for a writ of (‘ertiorari
is proporly arltlrossorl to that court. Foo Il'oods V.
i\’/‘(’l'.\'//l(’!.Il/(1', 323 II. S. 211; 15 IV. of Chic. L. Rev. 118,
122.

The l‘aets (‘()ll('(‘tl(‘(l by rosponrlent are as follows:

Tho eonnnon-law rooortl rooitos that potitioner was ar-
raiguotl in open oourt antl arlyisotl through interpreters
ol' tho moaning autl oll'oot of a plea of guilty :Hltl that poti-
tionor signorl a statonront waiving jury trial and pl auling
guilty. He was sontonootl to lit'o iinprisornnont. It (loos
not appear. howoyor. that an attorney was appointorl t0
roprosont hint. that tho waiyor was in fat-t signotl by him.
or that a ploa of guilty was ontorotl at the trial. IIo was
1.\' years oltl at that limo aml harl been in this ('ountry only.
two yours