United States v. Pike
| Citation | 439 F.2d 695 |
| Decision Date | 04 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 26044.,26044. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert Lee PIKE, Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Daniel Kallen (argued), of Somers & Kallen, Santa Monica, Cal., for appellant.
Andrew R. Willing, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Crim. Div., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before MERRILL and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON,* District Judge.
Appellant Pike appeals from his conviction for failing to report for his physical examination and for refusing to submit to induction in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462.
We reverse Pike's conviction because the district court erroneously denied Pike's timely request to represent himself. As Judge Medina observed in United States v. Plattner (2d Cir. 1964) 330 F.2d 271, 273: Nothing in the record suggests that Pike's election to waive counsel and to conduct his own defense was incompetent or unintelligent. See Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann (1942) 317 U.S. 269, 279, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed. 268. This is not a case in which the court appointed counsel to provide assistance to a defendant in representing himself.
It is unnecessary to discuss Pike's other contentions. They are either authoritatively decided by other cases that have come down since the appeal was taken or arise from circumstances that are unlikely to recur in the event of retrial.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the district court.
* Hon. Gus J. Solomon, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Dougherty
...United States v. Warner, 428 F.2d 730 (8th Cir. 1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 930, 91 S.Ct. 194, 27 L.Ed.2d 191 (1971); United States v. Pike, 439 F.2d 695 (9th Cir. 1971); Hodge v. United States, 414 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1969). But compare Juelich v. United States, 342 F.2d 29 (5th Cir. 1965......
-
Walker v. Loggins
...to assistance of counsel includes the correlative right to dispense with counsel and proceed In propria persona."); United States v. Pike, 439 F.2d 695 (9 Cir. 1971) (" 'The right to act pro se * * * is a right arising out of the Federal Constitution and not the mere product of legislation ......
-
U.S. v. Kennedy
...appellant. It is settled in this circuit that a defendant has a constitutionally guaranteed right to act pro se. United States v. Pike, 439 F.2d 695 (9th Cir. 1971). However, it is equally settled in this circuit that demand must be unequivocal. Meeks v. Craven, 482 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1973)......
-
Chapman v. U.S.
...457 F.2d 657, 659 (5th Cir. 1972) (decision to defend pro se is exercise of defendant's "freedom of choice"); see also United States v. Pike, 439 F.2d 695 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Warner, 428 F.2d 730 (8th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 930, 91 S.Ct. 194, 27 L.Ed.2d 191 (1971);......