Hendrickson v. Overlade, Civ. No. 1715.
Decision Date | 07 June 1955 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 1715. |
Citation | 131 F. Supp. 561 |
Parties | Elwood R. HENDRICKSON v. J. Ellis OVERLADE, as Warden of the Indiana State Prison. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
Perry W. Cross, Deputy Public Defender, Munice, Ind., for petitioner.
Robert S. Baker, Deputy Atty. Gen. of Indiana, for respondent.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding which was heard by this court on the merits even though the petitioner had made no application to the Supreme Court of the United States for certiorari after the Supreme Court of Indiana had affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. Hendrickson v. State, 118 N.E.2d 493.
The petitioner, without objection or at the most without serious objection on behalf of the respondent, practically retried the criminal case in this court. Accordingly this court does now have before it the entire transcript of the record on appeal; the parol testimony of the petitioner and other witnesses called by him, and that of counsel who represented him in the trial of the criminal case. Whether that be proper in a habeas corpus proceeding in the federal court is unimportant. That is the manner in which the parties tried this cause in this court and perhaps it is well because this court has all of the facts before it.
It, therefore, is the cause on the merits which now solicits the decision of this court and because the special findings of fact and conclusions of law appear in this opinion, it will be filed and will serve as such.
It is the contention of the petitioner that he is unlawfully restrained of his liberty by the respondent, as Warden of the Indiana State Prison, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States because of incompetency of his counsel and alleged errors occurring at his trial which resulted in his conviction.
The undisputed evidence is that counsel who represented the petitioner in the trial of his criminal case in the Shelby Circuit Court is a member of the Indianapolis, Indiana bar and was employed and retained by petitioner's wife for the petitioner and that employment was ratified by the petitioner and the services of counsel were rendered for and on behalf of the petitioner. In other words, under the evidence, the petitioner was represented by counsel of his own choice and employment.
Some courts have held by inference that there is no distinction between representation of court appointed counsel and employed counsel of the defendant's own choice on the question of denial of due process. We hold that there is a distinction and that a lack of skill or the incompetency of counsel employed, and, at the choice of the accused, representing him is imputed to the client, the acts of his counsel thus becoming those of the client and so recognized and accepted by the court, unless the defendant repudiates them by making known to the court his objection to or lack of concurrence in them. A defendant cannot acquiesce in his attorney's defense of him or his lack of it and, after the trial has resulted adversely to the defendant, obtain a new trial because of the negligence, incompetency or unskillfulness of his attorney, unless the representation was such as to amount to practically no representation and reduced the trial to a farce or a sham.
It is the further contention of the petitioner that because the trial court gave to the jury four instructions wherein he referred to the degree of proof as by a preponderance of the evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt his conviction is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The court has before it the entire transcript of the proceedings in the state court. The transcript shows that the trial court gave to the jury 50 instructions on its own motion and 5, which were tendered by the defendant. In those instructions the jury was specifically instructed some 16 times that the defendant could not be convicted unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and in the court's instruction No 26 the jury was instructed that:
and again and again the jury was instructed by the court that the burden was on the State to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; that the defendant could not be convicted of any crime charged or included unless the jury was convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that if any juror...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Wein
...353 U.S. 938, 77 S.Ct. 817, 1 L.Ed.2d 761; United States ex rel. Feeley v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 166 F.2d 976, 980-981; Hendrickson v. Overlade, D.C.N.D.Ind., 131 F.Supp. 561, 562-564. The record in this case does not even remotely approach such a situation. Defendant's sole defense lay in his cla......
-
State v. White
...involved in this case. Many courts deny relief where counsel is retained on the basis of both an agency theory (Hendrickson v. Overlade, 131 F.Supp. 561 (N.D.Ind.1955)), and the apparent absence of the 'state action' required by the Fourteenth Amendment, which is provided when there is cour......
-
Pires v. Com.
...retained counsel to a less severe standard. United States ex rel. O'Brien v. Maroney, 423 F.2d 865 (3d Cir. 1970); Hendrickson v. Overlade, 131 F.Supp. 561 (N.D.Ind.1955). Among the rationales on which these courts rely is that, unless retained counsel's conduct was known by responsible off......
-
Com. ex rel. Washington v. Maroney
...1576, 89 L.Ed. 2002 (1945). 3 State v. Keller, 57 N.D. 645, 648, 223 N.W. 698, 700, 64 A.L.R. 434 (1929). 4 Hendrickson v. Overlade, 131 F.Supp. 561, 564 5 Frand v. United States, 301 F.2d 102, 103 (10th Cir. 1962). 6 Tautological formulations such as that employed in Commonwealth ex rel. L......
-
Pronouncements of the U.s. Supreme Court Relating to the Criminal Law Field: 1983 - 1984
...354 F.2d 584, 587 (7th Cir. 1965) (counsel's assistance must render the trial "a travesty of justice"); Hendrickson v. Overlade, 131 F.Supp. 561, 564 (N.D. Ind. 1955) (counsel's representation must "reduce the trial to a travesty of justice or a farce or a sham"); Diggs v. Welch, 148 F.2d 6......