Taylor v. United States, 12566.
| Citation | 226 F.2d 337 |
| Decision Date | 07 July 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 12566.,12566. |
| Parties | James Robert TAYLOR, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Messrs. James S. Brocard and D. A. St. Angelo, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Arthur J. McLaughlin, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before PRETTYMAN, FAHY and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
This proceeding was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate the sentence imposed on appellant upon his conviction on a narcotics charge. The main ground urged is that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel, as guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment. Counsel on this appeal were appointed by the District Court and were not appellant's trial counsel.
We think the motion, under the particular circumstances of the case, should have been granted.
Reversed and remanded with directions to vacate the sentence and award a new trial.
I would remand the Section 2255 proceeding to the District Court for a finding, after an evidentiary hearing, including both oral testimony and cross-examination, whether Taylor knew at the time he employed counsel that these counsel represented Monroe. See United States v. Hayman, 1952, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Hurt
...at 324, 92 L.Ed. at 321-322. (legal advice supplied by lawyer-agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation); Taylor v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 379, 226 F.2d 337 (1955) (defense counsel also serving as attorney for informant used as Government witness); Scott v. District of Columbia, ......
-
Edwards v. United States
...were no narcotics withdrawal symptoms at the time of arraignment, and we do not consider the matter further. 3 Taylor v. United States, 1955, 96 U.S. App.D.C. 379, 226 F.2d 337 (assistance of counsel); Smith v. United States, 1950, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 80, 187 F.2d 192, certiorari denied 341 U.S......
-
United States v. LaVallee
...he was made aware during the course of the trial that a prosecution witness was a client of his attorney. See Taylor v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 379, 226 F.2d 337 (1955), reversing 126 F.Supp. 764 (D.D.C.1954). Cf. Glasser v. United States, supra; Craig v. United States, 217 F.2d 355 ......
-
People v. LaBrake
...that this witness might again be a paying client, Tucker was denied his constitutional right to counsel.' In Taylor v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 379, 7 Cir., 226 F.2d 337, the conviction was reversed and a new trial ordered where counsel also represented the informer who was a governme......