Slaughter v. United States., 644.

• Decision Date: 29 March 1949
• Docket Number: No. 644.,644.
• Citation: 65 A.2d 570
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals
• Parties: SLAUGHTER v. UNITED STATES.

65 A.2d 570

SLAUGHTER

v.UNITED STATES.

No. 644.

Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

March 29, 1949.

Appeal from the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia, Criminal Division.

John S. F. Slaughter was convicted on charges of unlawful entry, indecent assault on a two year old girl, and assault on the girl's father, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Edward E. O'Neill, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Stafford R. Grady, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C. (George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty., J. Warren Wilson, and Sidney S. Sachs, Asst. U. S. Atty., all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.

Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and CLAGETT, Associate Judges.

CAYTON, Chief Judge.

Once before this case was here, on appeal from convictions on charges of unlawful entry, indecent assault on a two-year-old girl and assault on the child's father. We appointed counsel to represent appellant and after briefs were filed and oral arguments presented we affirmed the convictions. Slaughter v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 60 A.2d 700. We overruled appellant's contention that he had been denied his constitutional rights to be represented by counsel of his own choosing and to have effective aid of counsel in the preparation and trial of his case.

On our decision we set out the facts fully as they apppeared in the record before us. We based our affirmance largely on the premise, supported by the record, that defendant's attorney up to the time of trial was Mr. Thomas David. We recited that there had been three earlier continuances and a lapse of four months between arraignment and trial, during which time defendant was free on bond; that Mr. David did not appear at the time set for trial and no explanation of his absence was offered and no showing made that defendant had made any attempt to locate him. In view of these and other circumstances we ruled that the trial court had not abused its discretion in refusing a further continuance or in proceeding to trial with assigned counsel. We said, commenting on the opportunity defendant had to secure counsel during his four months freedom on bail, ‘* * * neither defendant nor his counsel had the right to do nothing, wait until the case was called and then demand a continuance. A duty rested upon both defendant and his counsel to make reasonable efforts to be prepared when the day for trial arrived’, quoting from Tolbert v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 55 A.2d 91, 93. (Appeal denied by United States Court of Appeals January 14, 1948.) We also held that there was no error with reference to other contentions advanced by appellant.

It is to be noted that up to that point in the proceedings defendant had been represented by three different attorneys: by Mr. Thomas David on arraignment and presumably up to time of trial; by Mr. Louis Jongbloet at the trial by appointment of the trial court, and by Mr. Dennis Collins whom we appointed to represent him on his appeal to this court.

Thereafter, defendant applied to the United States Court of Appeals for a review of our decision. There still another attorney, Mr. Edward E. O'Neill, was appointed as his counsel. Mr. O'Neill filed in that Court nine affidavits, some of which contained allegations as to whether Mr. David or Mr. Graham or either of them was actually representing defendant on the day the case was called for trial. That Court allowed an appeal and on the same day remanded the case to us ‘with directions to authorize the trial judge to supplement his statement of proceedings and evidence in this case regarding petitioner's representation by counsel, if it be incomplete’. ¹

In accordance with that opinion we remanded the case to the Municipal Court with authority to supplement the statement of proceedings and evidence, if it be incomplete, regarding defendant's representation by counsel; and we directed that each of the three judges before whom the case had been, certify as to the proceedings had before him in that respect. Judges Scott and Neilson have certified to this court supplemental statements of proceedings and evidence. Judge Quinn, before whom the withdrawal of Mr. David and the appearance of Mr. Graham allegedly took place, held an extensive hearing, at which appellant Slaughter was present and testified, as did also Mr. David, Mr. Graham, two court clerks, and another witness. The complete stenographic transcript of that hearing is now before us. The supplemental record also includes, in addition to the statements certified by Judge Scott and Judge Neilson, the several informations and the jury-trial docket lists with their original entries. After these supplemental records were filed here, we set the case for oral argument, and it was fully argued by counsel for the parties. From the two records, it appears that the following occurred.

Defendant Slaughter was represented by Attorney David at his arraignment. The jury trial originally set for November 14, 1947, was continued to December 3, 1947 at the request of the Government. On that date before Judge Quinn, Mr. David requested permission to withdraw from the case because the defendant had requested Mr. Graham to defend him in these charges, Graham already representing him in other charges and having represented him over a period of six years. The defendant was sick at the time but made an appearance later in the day to request a continuance. Judge Quinn granted permission to Mr. David to withdraw on condition that Mr. Graham enter his appearance in the case. At this point the evidence becomes contradictory.

Mr. Graham denied categorically that he entered his appearance and denied that he ever agreed to represent the defendant in these charges because of fees unpaid in other cases. He was, however, currently retained as his co...