Baker v. People of State of New York
Decision Date | 02 April 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 69 Civ. 499.,69 Civ. 499. |
Citation | 299 F. Supp. 1265 |
Parties | Wallace BAKER, Ronald Felder, William Craig, Robert Rice, and Walter Thomas, Petitioners, v. The PEOPLE OF the STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondents. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
William M. Kunstler, Conrad J. Lynn, Mary Kaufman, New York City, for petitioners.
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., New York County, New York City, for respondents; Alan Scribner, New York City, of counsel.
Petitioners were indicted and convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. Prior to their trial, petitioners, who were indigent, moved to have counsel of their choice, who were ready, willing, and able to represent them, assigned, with pay, to defend them. Their motion was denied and other court appointed counsel defended them.
On appeal, the New York Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial on the ground that confessions had been improperly admitted at the trial, People v. Baker, 23 N.Y.2d 307, 296 N. Y.S.2d 745, 244 N.E.2d 232 (1968). In its opinion, the court stated, "Finally, we find no error in the manner in which the trial court appointed defendants' counsel." 296 N.Y.S.2d at 757, 244 N. E.2d at 240.
Petitioners are now awaiting a second trial and allege that they have again been denied the services of counsel of their choice, who are ready, willing, and able to represent them, notwithstanding the fact that counsel of their choice are members of the Indigent Defendants' Legal Panel. Section IV-A-4 (trial panels) and Section IV-C-4 (appellate panels) of the Plan for the Indigent Defendants Legal Panel, adopted pursuant to Article 18-B of the County Law, McKinney's Consol. Laws, c. 11, provide:
"No defendant accepting representation under Article 18-B of the County Law shall be permitted to select his own counsel from the panel of attorneys."
Petitioners contend that they have a constitutional right to counsel of their own choice and, moreover, since a co-defendant, Hamm, has been assigned counsel of his choice, the others are being denied equal protection of the laws.
Petitioners seek to support the removal on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), which provides as follows:
and they cite 42 U.S.C. § 1981 to support their contention that they are being denied equal rights under the law, which section provides:
The rules laid down in Peacock and Rachel were followed by the Court of Appeals for this Circuit in Chestnut v. People, 370 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1009, 87 S.Ct. 1355, 18 L.Ed.2d 439 (1967), the Court pointing out:
Indeed, Whatley was merely an application of the Peacock rule to a subsequently enacted statute. See also People of the State of New York v. Davis, 411 F.2d 750 (2d Cir. March 28, 1969).
At argument, petitioners forcefully raised the issue that since they have a constitutional right to counsel under Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), they also have a right to counsel of their own choice, at least if such counsel are members of an approved panel created for the purpose of providing legal services to indigent defendants, and if such counsel are ready, willing, and able to represent them.
Whatever merit there may be to petitioners' claim,* it is not a ground for removal, for it is not a "right under any law providing for * * * equal civil rights." 384 U.S. at 788, 86 S.Ct. at 1788. The Court in Georgia v. Rachel, supra, held that that phrase "must be construed to mean any law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality." 384 U.S. at 792, 86 S.Ct. at 1790, and indicated in City of Greenwood v. Peacock, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
La Rocca v. Lane
...Norman v. California, 391 U.S. 923, 88 S.Ct. 1819, 20 L.Ed.2d 661; Commonwealth v. Johnson, 428 Pa. 210, 236 A.2d 805; Baker v. People, S.D.N.Y., 299 F.Supp. 1265). The court's duty is simply to select competent counsel within the provisions of the statute (County Law, § 722; see 21 Am.Jur.......
-
People of State of New York v. Baker
...removal, as is cited herein. While the factual claims are now slightly different, the same body of law applies. See Baker et al. v. People, etc., 299 F.Supp. 1265 (D.C.1969). 9 See also Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 78 S.Ct. 221, 2 L.Ed.2d 199; Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 69 S.Ct.......
-
Coleman v. Chappius
...an issue of state law, the improper application of section 722 is not cognizable on federal habeas review.12 See Baker v. New York, 299 F. Supp. 1265, 1266-68 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) (finding a New York County Law § 722 challenge to an earlier version of the law on the basis that petitioners were d......
-
Davis v. Stevens, 71 Civ. 837.
...plans adopted under the Criminal Justice Act by the district courts throughout the country also include similar provisions. Baker v. People, 299 F.Supp. 1265, 1267n. (S.D. Finally, it is to be noted that included in one of the exhibits to plaintiff's complaint is a list of counsel acceptabl......