277 F.2d 702 (2nd Cir. 1960), 225, United States ex rel. Reid v. Richmond

Docket Nº:225, 25809.
Citation:277 F.2d 702
Party Name:UNITED STATES ex rel. Benjamin REID, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mark S. RICHMOND, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Case Date:April 20, 1960
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Page 702

277 F.2d 702 (2nd Cir. 1960)

UNITED STATES ex rel. Benjamin REID, Petitioner-Appellant,


Mark S. RICHMOND, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 225, 25809.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 20, 1960

Argued Feb. 5, 1960.

William D. Graham, Hartford, Conn., for appellant.

John D. LaBelle, State's Atty. for Hartford County, Manchester, J. Read Murphy, George D. Stoughton, Asst. State's Attys. for Hartford County, Hartford, for appellee.

Before MEDINA and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges, and MADDEN, Judge, J.S. Court of Claims. [*]

WATERMAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of Judge J. Joseph Smith of the District Court of Connecticut discharging after a hearing a writ of habeas corpus previously issued. Judge Smith granted

Page 703

the certificate of probable cause required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253 so that relator could appeal.

Benjamin Reid is about to be executed degree. The conviction was affirmed by June 1957 after his Connecticut conviction for the crime of murder in the first degree. The conviction was affirmed by the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors. State v. Reid, 1959, 146 Conn. 227, 149 A.2d 698.

Although no application for certiorari was made to the United States Supreme Court after the affirmance of the conviction by the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors, Judge Smith's holding is unchallenged that under the circumstances present here relator has exhausted all the state remedies available to him.

Relator presents three claims of alleged denial of due process of law. First, he was forced to proceed to trial with counsel he did not want; Second, there was a prejudicial delay in the assignment of counsel to him; and Third, the Public Defender system of the State of Connecticut is unconstitutional.

We consider the third point first. We agree with Judge Smith that even though the Public Defender is appointed by the same judges who will hear the cases in which he participates, and even though those same judges fix the Public Defender's salary and term of office, the Connecticut Public Defender system is not violative of due process.

As to the first two contentions, however, we are of the opinion that they can only be decided on the basis of the complete state transcript-- a transcript not before Judge Smith and therefore not considered by him. Our reasons for so holding are...

To continue reading