Couchois v. United States, 10777.
| Decision Date | 23 May 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 10777.,10777. |
| Citation | 142 F.2d 1 |
| Parties | COUCHOIS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
E. E. Talbot, John D. Miller, and Isaac S. Heller, all of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Albert J. Tully, U. S. Atty., of Mobile, Ala., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.
Found guilty on two counts of an indictment charging him with sedition1 and sentenced to a term of five years, defendant has appealed. No claim is made that the indictment was defective, no error is assigned to the charge. It is claimed that the verdict is not supported by, but is contrary to, the substantial evidence, but no motion for directed verdict was made, and the record does not at all support the claim made that it is clear that a verdict for defendant was demanded. There were, too, several objections to rulings on evidence, but it is quite clear that the assignments as to them present no prejudicial error. The case for reversal comes down at last to the claim that in denying the motion for continuance made by appointed counsel and in putting defendant to trial at the time and under the circumstances disclosed by the record, the district judge abused his discretion and denied defendant a fair trial.2
Of course, if appellant is right in his claim that, without giving him an opportunity to obtain his witnesses or to otherwise prepare for trial and without giving his counsel appointed on the day of trial that opportunity, the judge hurried him to trial under circumstances which prevented his making his defense, appellant would be right in insisting that he had not had a fair trial and that the judgment must be reversed. But the record3 will not support these claims. It shows, on the contrary: the lapse of some six months between indictment and trial; that the trial had been twice set, the government continuing it once without objection from the defendant; that defendant had been notified of the resetting, and, without making any complaint of his not having counsel, or any request for more time to get counsel of his own, had appeared at the time of the setting, stating that he supposed he was as ready for trial as he ever would be. Thereafter, the case proceeded to trial, ending on the fifth day. No other effort was made to get a continuance, no showing was made as to the names of witnesses desired and not present, or as to what could be proved by them. There was no request for process to get them. Instead, an agreement was made with the government as to six members of the merchant crew that they would testify that they had never heard the defendant make any of the remarks attributed to him by members of the armed guard. It is not claimed that appellant's appointed counsel was incompetent or that he did not represent appellant with intelligence and fidelity.
Under these circumstances, we do not think that it can be said that the refusal of the continuance was an abuse of discretion or that the defendant was otherwise denied a fair trial. If plaintiff had been represented by counsel of his own choosing, there would be no doubt about this, Chastain v. United States, 5 Cir., 138 F.2d 413. Can it be that the fact alone that his counsel was court appointed instead of selected by the defendant has made an unfair trial of an otherwise fair one? We do not think so. It is true that the fact that defendant has no counsel and that the court appoints counsel for him on the day of, and refuses to delay, the trial is a fact to be considered in connection with the other facts in determining whether the trial has been fair, Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158, 84 A.L.R. 527. It is equally true, though, that this is only one of the many facts having bearing on the trial as a whole, and that the fact alone that counsel was appointed and a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Torres v. United States
...case, would not require us to hold the facts here constituted a denial of effective assistance of counsel. See also, Couchois v. United States, 5 Cir., 1944, 142 F.2d 1. II On the second point raised, it is contended that the acquittal on the theft charge operated as an acquittal on the cha......
-
United States v. Grow
...159 U.S. 487, 489, 16 S.Ct. 51, 40 L.Ed. 229 (1895); Torres v. United States, 270 F. 2d 252, 254-255 (9 Cir. 1959); Couchois v. United States, 142 F.2d 1 (5 Cir. 1944.) ...
-
Lewis v. Sanford, 2259.
...the innocent, and complaint alone, without a showing, that a fair trial has been denied, will not support a reversal." Couchois v. United States, 5 Cir., 142 F.2d 1, 2, certiorari denied 323 U.S. 754, 65 S. Ct. 81, 89 L.Ed. The mere fact that only one conference was had between petitioner a......