United States v. Richmond

Citation277 F.2d 702
Decision Date20 April 1960
Docket NumberDocket 25809.,No. 225,225
PartiesUNITED STATES ex rel. Benjamin REID, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mark S. RICHMOND, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

William D. Graham, Hartford, Conn., for appellant.

John D. LaBelle, State's Atty. for Hartford County, Manchester, J. Read Murphy, George D. Stoughton, Asst. State's Attys. for Hartford County, Hartford, for appellee.

Before MEDINA and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges, and MADDEN, Judge, U. S. Court of Claims.*

WATERMAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of Judge J. Joseph Smith of the District Court of Connecticut discharging after a hearing a writ of habeas corpus previously issued. Judge Smith granted the certificate of probable cause required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253 so that relator could appeal.

Benjamin Reid is about to be executed pursuant to a death sentence imposed in June 1957 after his Connecticut conviction for the crime of murder in the first degree. The conviction was affirmed by the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors. State v. Reid, 1959, 146 Conn. 227, 149 A.2d 698.

Although no application for certiorari was made to the United States Supreme Court after the affirmance of the conviction by the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors, Judge Smith's holding is unchallenged that under the circumstances present here relator has exhausted all the state remedies available to him.

Relator presents three claims of alleged denial of due process of law. First, he was forced to proceed to trial with counsel he did not want; Second, there was a prejudicial delay in the assignment of counsel to him; and Third, the Public Defender system of the State of Connecticut is unconstitutional.

We consider the third point first. We agree with Judge Smith that even though the Public Defender is appointed by the same judges who will hear the cases in which he participates, and even though those same judges fix the Public Defender's salary and term of office, the Connecticut Public Defender system is not violative of due process.

As to the first two contentions, however, we are of the opinion that they can only be decided on the basis of the complete state transcript — a transcript not before Judge Smith and therefore not considered by him. Our reasons for so holding are made clear by a statement of the facts concerning relator's legal representation at various pretrial proceedings, and, subsequently, at the trial itself.

On January 15, 1957 Reid was arrested by New Haven police in connection with the murder in Hartford on the preceding day of a Florine McCluney. He was brought before the Police Court in Hartford and was ordered held without bond. Twenty-two days later, on February 6th, he was in attendance at a coroner's inquest, and, after having been advised of his constitutional right to remain silent, but perhaps not of his right to counsel, he gave a detailed statement in which he fully confessed to the crime. On March 7th he appeared and testified before the Grand Jury and was indicted for murder in the first degree. Reid was a minor of 19 years, and so James Cosgrove, the Public Defender of Hartford County, was appointed his guardian ad litem. Cosgrove was present during some of the Grand Jury proceedings. Four weeks later, on April 1st, Reid wrote to the judge of the Superior Court stating that he did not wish to accept the Public Defender and wanted one Thomas McDunnugh sic assigned. On April 5th Reid appeared in court and was advised that he could retain any counsel he wanted, but that the court would only assign James Cosgrove, the Public Defender. The official assignment of Mr. Cosgrove was then made, although he may have been acting in Reid's behalf prior to that time on the assumption that he would be assigned. On April 26th William Graham, who now represents relator, was assigned as Special Assistant Public Defender, and on May 17th Mr. Cosgrove moved to be discharged as counsel because he could get no cooperation from Reid who had told him that he did not want him to act in his behalf.

In June 1957 Reid went on trial, was convicted, and on June 15th was sentenced. The defense at trial had been conducted by Mr. Cosgrove with Mr. Graham present at the counsel table. It appears from the record before us that Reid continued to object to Mr. Cosgrove, either personally or because he was the Public Defender, and that he would discuss his case only with Mr. Graham.

From the brief chronology given above, it is probable that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Moynahan v. Manson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • August 31, 1976
    ...in Connecticut the State's Attorneys, or prosecutors, are appointed by the courts before whom they practice.35 Cf. United States v. Richmond, 277 F.2d 702, 703 (2d Cir. 1960); United States v. Solomon, 216 F.Supp. 835, 838-43 (S.D.N.Y. Finally, the petitioner's last two challenges, that he ......
  • Nash v. Reincke
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • December 12, 1962
    ...Defender Law of Connecticut, as employed by its courts, does not violate the requirements of due process. United States ex rel. Reid v. Richmond, 277 F.2d 702, 703 (2 Cir. 1960). Nash promptly moved, on November 3, 1959, to correct Judge Alcorn's order, reciting in his motion, inter alia, "......
  • United States v. Richmond
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • September 19, 1961
    ...trial and to decide whether the delay in assigning counsel to Reid was so prejudicial as to render his conviction unconstitutional. 2 Cir., 1960, 277 F.2d 702. Judge Smith took testimony with respect to Reid's intelligence and considered the state court record. He then made detailed finding......
  • United States v. Murphy
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • August 31, 1962
    ...after arraignment. See Crooker v. State of California, 357 U.S. 433, 439 78 S.Ct. 1287, 2 L.Ed.2d 1448 (1958); U. S. ex rel. Reid v. Richmond, 277 F.2d 702 (2nd Cir. 1960); cf. People v. Di Biasi, 7 N.Y.2d 544 200 N.Y.S.2d 21, 166 N.E.2d 825 (1960)." It would seem a simple remand with narro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT