William Brown, Jr., Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee, 264 F.2d 363 (D.C. Cir. 1959)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 264 F.2d 363 (D.C. Cir. 1959) Argued October 6, 1958
Decided February 5, 1959

 1

He was not the trial counsel

 2

There is a passage in Adams v. United States, 1942, 317 U.S. 269, 279, 63 S. Ct. 236, 87 L. Ed. 268, which speaks of that right as "correlative" to the constitutional right to counsel; but the opinion does not say the defendant's right to defend himself is constitutional

 3

28 U.S.C. § 1654 (1952) is as follows:

"In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein."

The section is derived from § 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 92.

 4

The defendant had said to the trial judge, "If I am going to plead guilty I might as well defend myself."

 1

Cf. Shepherd v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 1947, 163 F.2d 872 (defendant pleaded guilty upon advice of counsel; later attack sentence as invalid because he lacked effective assistance of counsel); Beaney, The Right to Counsel in American Courts 59-60 (1955)

 2

137 F.2d 1006, opinion adhered to on rehearing 2 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 381, certiorari denied 1944, 321 U.S. 794, 64 S. Ct. 785, 88 L. Ed. 1083

 3

In the Mitchell case the record showed quite a different fact situation:

"`Defendant Mitchell addressed the Court and stated "I would like the dismissal of this attorney. I am within my rights." To this the court said: "I have assigned him to represent you," whereupon defendant said: "I refuse to accept this man as my attorney." Then the court replied: "Sit down. The Jury will disregard this demonstration."'" 137 F.2d at page 1010.

 4

137 F.2d at page 1012

 5

Cf. Justice Douglas' dissent in Bute v. People of State of Illinois, 1948, 333 U.S. 640, 680-681, 68 S. Ct. 763, 92 L. Ed. 986; Gray v. Ellis, 5 Cir., 1958, 257 F.2d 159

 1

It appears that the jury was in the courtroom, and accordingly the colloquy was no doubt conducted in a low voice. We cannot assume that the accused heard what was said: the contrary must have been the case

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.