Casey v. Overlade
| Decision Date | 24 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1702. |
| Citation | 129 F. Supp. 433 |
| Parties | Grant F. CASEY, Relator, v. J. Ellis OVERLADE, Warden, Indiana State Prison, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
Grant F. Casey, pro se.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Robert S. Baker, Frank E. Spencer, Deputies Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding wherein this Court entered an order for the respondent to show cause why the writ should not issue and the respondent having failed to take any action within the time fixed, the Court ordered the writ to issue returnable on March 23, 1955. Prior to hearing on the date returnable, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss.
On March 23, 1955, the respondent produced the petitioner, who informed the Court that he did not desire the services of the Public Defender of Indiana and wished to represent himself. The motion of the respondent to dismiss was submitted and before the Court ruled, the respondent moved the Court to reserve its ruling thereon, to file a written return to the writ and submit the cause on the merits. With the consent of the petitioner, the motion of the respondent was granted; the Court reserved its ruling on the motion to dismiss; the respondent filed his written return to the writ and by agreement of the parties the cause was submitted to the Court on the merits.
It being the expressed desire of the parties that the Court decide this cause on the merits, the motion of the respondent to dismiss will, therefore, be denied, notwithstanding the fact that the undisputed evidence conclusively shows that the petitioner has failed to exhaust the remedies available to him in the courts of the State of Indiana, and the Court will decide the cause on the merits, with this opinion being filed to serve as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court.
The sole contention of the petitioner is that in the jury trial which resulted in a verdict of guilty he was represented by incompetent counsel because his attorney recommended that the petitioner not take the witness stand before the jury in his defense and refused to have a subpoena issued for a witness whose name was endorsed on the affidavit as a witness for the prosecution. It is upon this premise, and this premise alone, which the petitioner bases his claim for relief.
In the opinion of this Court, the evidence conclusively shows that the petitioner was represented by a member of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kruchten
...United States v. Stoecker, 216 F.2d 51 (C.A.7, 1954); Application of Tomich, 221 F.Supp. 500 (D.C.Mont., 1963); Casey v. Overlade, 129 F.Supp. 433 (D.C.Ind., 1955). 'Advocacy is a skill and art; easy to criticize, difficult to fairly appraise. Indeed a post-mortem of criminal trials, select......
-
State v. Rackley
...United States v. Stoecker, 216 F.2d 51 (C.A.7, 1954); Application of Tomich, 221 F.Supp. 500 (D.C.Mont.1963); Casey v. Overlade, 129 F.Supp. 433 (D.C.Ind., 1955). 'Advocacy is a skill and art; easy to criticize, difficult to fairly appraise. Indeed a post-mortem of criminal trials, selected......
-
Johnson v. State, 1167S131
...A.L.R. 1390 and cases collected therein. We believe that this is a very wisely drawn guideline. For, as was stated in Casey v. Overlade, 129 F.Supp. 433 (N.D.Ind.1955), where a defendant in a criminal case is represented by reputable counsel of his own selection, and is convicted after a fa......