Coates v. Lawrence, 10418.

Decision Date01 February 1943
Docket NumberNo. 10418.,10418.
Citation131 F.2d 110
PartiesCOATES v. LAWRENCE, Superintendent and Warden of Georgia State Prison.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

James R. Venable and Paul Crutchfield, both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.

Ellis Arnall, of Atlanta, Ga., and Charles W. Walker, of Macon, Ga., for appellee.

Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.

Writ of Certiorari Denied February 1, 1943. See 63 S.Ct. 532, 87 L.Ed. ___.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal by Charles Coates from a judgment discharging a writ of habeas corpus and remanding him to the custody of the warden of the Georgia State Prison. The question for decision is whether Coates' constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities were violated upon his trial in the Superior Court of Catoosa County, Georgia, for the crime of murder.

The facts of record from which the issues arise are these: When his case was called for trial the accused had not employed counsel, and the court appointed two attorneys of high standing and wide experience to represent him. These attorneys were given ample opportunity to advise with their client and to prepare his defense, but Coates refused to confide in them on the ground that he had been "double-crossed" theretofore by lawyers whom he did not know. When the case went to trial one of the appointed attorneys was unable to be present, but the father of the remaining counsel, a qualified attorney, assisted his son throughout the trial, and was present at every stage of the proceedings, although his son was not present when the verdict was returned and sentence imposed.

During the course of the trial the presiding judge was advised that one of the jurors was strongly prejudiced due to an animosity he bore against the decedent for whose homicide Coates was being tried. Thereupon this juror was excused in the presence of the defendant and his attorney, without objection, and the trial proceeded before the remaining eleven jurors. The Georgia authorities were aware that, on the occasion of a previous arrest of Coates, an organized group of his confederates made an attempt to free him from custody. For this reason Coates' movements while in custody were cloaked in secrecy, devious routes were used, and a large group of highway patrolmen were present throughout the trial.

Coates contends that he was denied due process of law and the right to a trial by jury, in that he was not afforded c...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Kimes v. U.S., 86-1267.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • October 31, 1989
    ...(1928); Boreing v. Beard, 226 Ky. 47, ___, 10 S.W.2d 447, 451 (1928); Coates v. Lawrence, 46 F.Supp. 414, 422 (S.D.Ga.), aff'd, 131 F.2d 110 (5th Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 318 U.S. 759, 63 S.Ct. 532, 87 L.Ed. 1132 (1943). See also Gagnon, supra, 470 U.S. at 527-28, 105 S.Ct. at 1484-85 (def......
  • Schaber v. Maxwell
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • July 14, 1965
    ...fair trial and a court should grant relief by use of the writ of habeas corpus. Coates v. Lawrence, D.C., 46 F.Supp. 414, affirmed in 5 Cir., 131 F.2d 110." Frequently courts have drawn distinctions between cases involving court-appointed counsel and counsel employed by the defendant, his f......
  • Wilfong v. Johnston, 11253.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • June 27, 1946
    ...457, 86 L.Ed. 680; Coates v. Lawrence, D.C.S.D.Ga., 46 F.Supp. 414, 422, affirmed in opinion adopting opinion of District Court in 5 Cir., 131 F.2d 110, certiorari denied 318 U.S. 759, 63 S.Ct. 532, 87 L.Ed. 1132. See also: Batson v. U. S., 10 Cir., 137 F.2d 288, 289, where it is said: "We ......
  • United States v. Robinson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Illinois
    • May 13, 1952
    ...Achtien v. Dowd, 7 Cir., 117 F.2d 989; Andrews v. Robertson, 5 Cir., 145 F.2d 101; Coates v. Lawrence, D.C., 46 F.Supp. 414, affirmed, 5 Cir., 131 F.2d 110. It is the finding of the court that there is no evidence in the record, nor is there any possibility that evidence will be produced, f......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT