Gore v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Gore v. United States

209 F.2d 345, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3170

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 9, 1953

Docket11878

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 209 F.2d 345 (Gore v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gore v. United States, 209 F.2d 345, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3170 (6th Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal, the convicted defendant charges that he was deprived of his constitutional rights, under the Sixth Amendment, to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The charge is not well grounded in fact. The district judge appointed a competent attorney to represent appellant, who asked that the court discharge the appointed attorney. He did not ask for a substituted attorney, but expressed a preference to represent himself. Attorneys representing other defendants in the case stated to the court that, with the the consent of appellant, they would stand ready to guard his constitutional rights and “look after him.” Appellant stated: “That will suit me.” Asked by the judge whether he desired the volunteer attorneys to be named as his counsel, appellant stated that he wanted to represent himself. The court then told him that he would be at liberty to confer with the attorneys as they had offered to give him advice when called upon.

The case proceeded to trial, the volunteer lawyers aiding in numerous respects the appellant, who showed intelligence in examination of the witnesses against him and in other matters connected with representing himself. The government, in its brief, points to 44 instances during the course of the trial indicating that appellant had intelligently waived counsel and had intelligently, and without prejudice to himself, conducted his own defense, aided by the competent attorneys [representatives of the other defendants] who had volunteered to assist him. Actually, appellant, who was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment for bank robbery, was given a lesser sentence than that given the other two defendants, who each received a sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment.

The following authorities, among others, support the action of the district court in denying the motion of appellant to vacate sentence. Crawford v. United *346 States, 6 Cir., 188 F.2d 536; Woolard v. United States, 5 Cir., 178 F.2d 84; Burstein v. United States, 9 Cir., 178 F.2d 665; Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L. Ed. 268.

We think the ruling of the district court, denying the motion of appellant to vacate sentence, should, on the record and on the law of the case, be affirmed; and it is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal, the convicted defendant charges that he was deprived of his constitutional rights, under the Sixth Amendment, to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The charge is not well grounded in fact. The district judge appointed a competent attorney to represent appellant, who asked that the court discharge the appointed attorney. He did not ask for a substituted attorney, but expressed a preference to represent himself. Attorneys representing other defendants in the case stated to the court that, with the the consent of appellant, they would stand ready to guard his constitutional rights and “look after him.” Appellant stated: “That will suit me.” Asked by the judge whether he desired the volunteer attorneys to be named as his counsel, appellant stated that he wanted to represent himself. The court then told him that he would be at liberty to confer with the attorneys as they had offered to give him advice when called upon.

The case proceeded to trial, the volunteer lawyers aiding in numerous respects the appellant, who showed intelligence in examination of the witnesses against him and in other matters connected with representing himself. The government, in its brief, points to 44 instances during the course of the trial indicating that appellant had intelligently waived counsel and had intelligently, and without prejudice to himself, conducted his own defense, aided by the competent attorneys [representatives of the other defendants] who had volunteered to assist him. Actually, appellant, who was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment for bank robbery, was given a lesser sentence than that given the other two defendants, who each received a sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment.

The following authorities, among others, support the action of the district court in denying the motion of appellant to vacate sentence. Crawford v. United *346 States, 6 Cir., 188 F.2d 536; Woolard v. United States, 5 Cir., 178 F.2d 84; Burstein v. United States, 9 Cir., 178 F.2d 665; Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L. Ed. 268.

We think the ruling of the district court, denying the motion of appellant to vacate sentence, should, on the record and on the law of the case, be affirmed; and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 F.2d 345, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gore-v-united-states-ca6-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack