Melanson v. O'BRIEN, Misc. Civ. No. 51-4.
| Decision Date | 25 January 1951 |
| Docket Number | Misc. Civ. No. 51-4. |
| Citation | 95 F. Supp. 230 |
| Parties | MELANSON v. O'BRIEN. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Elmer A. Melanson, pro se.
None for respondent.
Accompanying the application for a writ of habeas corpus is an informal application to proceed in forma pauperis, which is allowed. A petition for the assignment of counsel and another petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum are both denied because it appears from the application for the writ that the applicant is not entitled thereto. A reading of the application discloses the following facts:
On January 4, 1946, the applicant was brought before the District Court of Berkshire County on a charge of rape and abuse of a female child. He was held in $1,000 bail and his case was postponed to January 11. On that day he was bound over to the Grand Jury and his bail was raised to $5,000. On January 16 he was indicted by the Grand Jury, and on January 22 went to trial and was convicted. He has exhausted his remedies in the state courts, and his application for certiorari has been denied by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The federal questions raised here were raised in the state court proceedings on motion for a new trial, which was denied. The applicant here contends that he was denied due process of law in violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (1) by trial without counsel, (2) trial in camera, and (3) a general allegation that he was denied due process of law by lack of fairness. This lack of fairness is not specified.
There is nothing to the applicant's complaint because the case was tried in camera. The application shows that, in trying this case for the abuse of a female child, the Court merely excluded spectators from the courtroom which of course it had a right to do. This was not an abuse of the Court's discretion.
As to his complaint that he proceeded to trial without counsel, I know of nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment which would prevent a defendant from going to trial without counsel under the proper circumstances. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right to proceed with counsel, Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471, 65 S.Ct. 363, 89 L.Ed. 398. The denial of opportunity to consult with counsel on any material step after indictment or similar charge and arraignment violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Hawk v. Olson, 326 U.S. 271, 278, 66 S.Ct. 116, 90 L.Ed. 61. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Melanson v. O'BRIEN, 4568.
...a memorandum in which he concluded that it appeared from the face of the petition that Melanson was not entitled to the relief sought. 95 F.Supp. 230; 101 F.Supp. 164. From an order dismissing the petition and denying the writ, the present appeal was taken. A certificate of probable cause f......
-
Melanson v. O'BRIEN
...No attorney for defendant. SWEENEY, Chief Judge. Since my memorandum of January 25, 1951, denying the writ of habeas corpus in this case, 95 F.Supp. 230, I have received from the applicant a letter dated January 29, 1951, together with an enclosure and a brief. For the purpose of appeal the......