Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
Patrick Mahon McGEE
Classification: Murderer
Characteristics: Robbery
Number of victims: 1
Date of murder: July 31, 1959
Date of arrest: Next day
Date of birth: May 3, 1907
Victim profile: Ary J. Best
Method of murder: Stabbing with knife
Location: Coconino County, Arizona, USA
Status: Executed by asphyxiation-gas in Arizona on March 8, 1963
In his petition for the writ of certiorari, petitioner recited that
of these claimed errors 'two are notably outstanding.' One of these was
the denial of his application for a change of venue which he says was
supported by copies of the newspaper circulated in the county where he
was tried. Another error which he said was outstanding was the alleged
failure of the trial court to give an instruction as to the
voluntariness of the confession, and as to whether, if it was
voluntarily given it was true. He complains of the Arizona Supreme
Court's discussion of this question in which it suggested that the
statement was merely an admission and not a confession.2
In his
jurisdictional statement to the Supreme Court of the United States
petitioner said that he had 'specially claimed under the Constitution of
the United States a title, right, privilege or immunity'; but, in
listing the so-called federal question sought to be reviewed he merely
listed the same errors previously mentioned adding a denial of a
separate preliminary hearing, a denial of bail, a charge that the county
attorney in his closing argument improperly stated that 'if the
defendant received a life sentence in Arizona it would mean from 10 to
12 years. This is an invasion by the judiciary on the legislative or
executive function.' He then concluded that in affirming the conviction
and the decision of the trial court, the Supreme Court of Arizona denied
petitioner 'due process and equal protection of the law.'
A reading
of the petition for the writ of habeas corpus with the other papers
mentioned convinces me that petitioner's counsel are laboring under a
serious misapprehension as to the function of the federal court in
dealing with such a petition for the writ of habeas corpus on behalf of
a state prisoner. A federal court's jurisdiction to issue such a writ is
strictly Limited. The only occasion for granting such a writ is stated
in sub-paragraph (c)(3) of 2241, Title 28, as follows: 'The writ of
habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless-- * * * (3) He is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.' A second limitation is found in 2254 of Title 28 where
the first paragraph of the section reads as follows: 'An application for
a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that
the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the
State, or that there is either an absence of available State corrective
process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process
ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner.'
Neither of these requirements are satisfied here. The limitation
upon a federal court in the case of a state prisoner was long ago
spelled out in simple language by this court in Sampsell v. People of
the State of California, 9 Cir., 191 F.2d 721, 725, as follows: 'Our
function in this type of proceeding is not to correct errors committed
in a state trial court. * * * Federal courts must withhold interference
with the administration of state criminal justice unless a federal right
has been violated."3
It is
plain to me that no question of denial of a federal constitutional right
was ever raised in the state court; that no such question was presented
in the application of certiorari, and no ground for relief by way of
habeas corpus was stated in the petition to the court below. Accordingly,
a certificate of probable cause is denied, and a stay of execution is
also denied.
