## Facts

- In June 1973, a Virginia jury in the Circuit Court of the City of Charlottesville convicted Ronald William Greenfield of second-degree murder for the stabbing death of Mary Frances Jordan and sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment.
- Greenfield’s trial was heavily publicized. He was represented by counsel.
- At trial, Greenfield pursued an “unconsciousness” defense and testified that he used heroin and a hallucinogenic drug on the night of Jordan’s homicide.
- Dr. Kenneth Locke, a psychiatrist, testified for the defense that he interviewed Greenfield to assess his condition and used hypnosis to help Greenfield attempt to recover memory of the events.
- The trial court barred Dr. Locke from repeating statements Greenfield made while in a hypnotic trance and refused to allow Dr. Locke to place Greenfield under hypnosis on the witness stand to elicit trance testimony.
- The record indicated that, if permitted, Dr. Locke would have testified that Greenfield’s hypnotically recovered memory included chasing another man from the scene. Dr. Locke also expressed the view that Greenfield was unconscious at the time of the homicide, but did not opine on the cause of that condition.
- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the conviction on direct review. Greenfield then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 against A. T. Robinson, Acting Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary.
- In the federal petition, Greenfield asserted seven constitutional claims: (1) unlawful seizure and use of his underwear while he was jailed; (2) denial of a change of venue despite pretrial publicity; (3) refusal to allow the defense to call the prosecutor as a witness about the murder weapon; (4) refusal to allow Greenfield to testify while under hypnosis; (5) refusal to allow a defense witness to relate what Greenfield said under hypnosis; (6) admission of an “illegal” confession; and (7) refusal to strike for cause a juror who had been involved in a similar crime.
- Some claims had been presented on direct appeal; others had not. The district court treated the unpresented claims as reviewable because no available state process remained for Greenfield to pursue them.

## Issues

1. Whether the jailhouse seizure and use of Greenfield’s underwear violated the Fourth Amendment so as to warrant federal habeas relief.
2. Whether denial of a change of venue in light of pretrial publicity violated due process by depriving Greenfield of a fair trial before an impartial jury.
3. Whether refusal to allow the defense to call the prosecuting attorney as a witness violated Greenfield’s federal constitutional trial rights.
4. Whether due process required the trial court to allow Greenfield to testify while under hypnosis.
5. Whether due process required admission of testimony from Dr. Locke (or another defense witness) recounting Greenfield’s statements made while under hypnosis.
6. Whether admission of Greenfield’s confession violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (including voluntariness and custodial-interrogation protections).
7. Whether the failure to strike a juror for cause based on prior involvement in a similar crime violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to an impartial jury.

## Decision

- The court denied the § 2254 petition and dismissed the action, leaving the state conviction intact.
- The court rejected the hypnosis-based claims, concluding that the trial court’s exclusion of trance testimony and hypnotically refreshed statements did not violate due process and did not fall within the narrow fairness concerns addressed in Chambers v. Mississippi.
- The court treated the hypnosis rulings as state evidentiary determinations influenced by reliability concerns and held that excluding this material did not make the trial fundamentally unfair.
- The court found no constitutional error warranting habeas relief in the seizure and admission of the underwear evidence.
- The court held that, on the trial record (including voir dire), the pretrial publicity did not require a venue change as a matter of due process.
- The court concluded that preventing the defense from calling the prosecutor as a witness did not amount to a federal constitutional violation.
- The court determined that Greenfield did not establish that his confession was obtained or admitted in violation of federal constitutional standards.
- The court found no showing of actual juror bias rising to a Sixth or Fourteenth Amendment violation based on the juror’s prior experience.

## Legal Principles

- Federal habeas relief lies only for violations of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; alleged errors of state evidence law do not support relief unless they render the proceeding fundamentally unfair.
- A defendant’s right to present a defense operates within ordinary evidentiary limits; due process does not require admission of defense evidence lacking adequate reliability safeguards.
- Chambers v. Mississippi does not constitutionalize broad admission of all defense evidence; it addresses unusual circumstances where excluded evidence bears strong guarantees of trustworthiness and is essential to a fair trial.
- A due process claim based on pretrial publicity generally requires a showing of actual prejudice or a record supporting a presumption of prejudice; voir dire is central to that assessment.
- A confession violates due process only if it is involuntary under the totality of the circumstances or admitted in violation of governing custodial-interrogation rules.
- The Sixth Amendment requires an impartial jury; a juror’s prior experiences do not establish constitutional bias absent a showing that the juror could not decide the case fairly.
- When no state corrective process remains available, a federal court may reach the merits of claims in a § 2254 petition without requiring further state exhaustion.

## Conclusion

In Greenfield v. Robinson, the federal district court denied habeas relief from a Virginia second-degree murder conviction, holding that the trial court’s exclusion of hypnosis-related testimony did not violate due process under Chambers and that Greenfield’s additional challenges—concerning seized clothing evidence, venue, calling the prosecutor as a witness, a confession, and juror qualification—failed to show a constitutional defect that justified federal intervention.


Greenfield v. Robinson, 413 F. Supp. 1113 (1976)