United States v. Stoecker
Decision Date | 12 October 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 11153.,11153. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John STOECKER, Jr., Ike Ramsey, and Alice Taylor Stoecker, Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Irwin S. Rubelle, Eugene M. Pratt, Rubelle & Pratt, Peoria, Ill., for appellants.
John B. Stoddart, Jr., U. S. Atty., Springfield, Ill., Marks Alexander, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Robert B. Oxtoby, Asst. U. S. Atty., Springfield, Ill., for appellee.
Before FINNEGAN, LINDLEY, and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judges.
These convictions of defendants John Stoecker, Jr., Ike Ramsey and Alice Taylor Stoecker, by a jury, for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421 and 18 U.S.C. § 371, must be affirmed. Narrating facts and evidence, disclosed by the record before us, would serve no useful purpose. Predicated upon a canvass of this entire record, it is our opinion that the evidence adduced at the trial supports the jury's verdict on the two-count indictment. United States v. Aman, 7 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 344; United States v. Poppa, 7 Cir., 1951, 190 F.2d 112.
We take a dim view of defendants' attempt to annul their convictions, in this appeal, by launching an attack against court appointed defense counsel. Their suggestion that he was inadequately equipped, because of a dearth of professional experience, to defend these prisoners is merely an unsupported criticism. Nor do we find any evidence that the district judge abused his discretion by appointing this particular lawyer pursuant to Rule 44, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.
Advocacy is a skill and art; easy to criticize, difficult to fairly appraise. Indeed, a post-mortem of criminal trials, selected at random, would undoubtedly reveal flaws of varying magnitude in the trial techniques of respected members of the bar. Our profession is one in which hindsight is a meager measure of counsel's competency. Trial strategy is seldom viewed with a uniform eye.
To permit speculative statements about counsel's age and scope of his professional experience to be smuggled into this appeal disguised as a constitutional question runs counter to well-settled principles governing reviewing tribunals. Not only is this record barren of such evidence, it is utterly devoid of those extreme manifestations of counsel's incompetency which, no doubt, precipitated reversal in People v. Nitti, 1924, 312 Ill. 73, 143 N.E. 448, 452, 453, and to which we are cited by defendants....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Curcio
... ... In his opening brief appellant states the issues as follows: ... '1) Was appellant denied due process and a fair and impartial trial ... receive 'effective' assistance of counsel as guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, when the record establishes that: ... 'a) counsel failed to object to ... (United States v. Stoecker, 7 Cir., 216 F.2d 51, ... Page 598 ... 52; People v. Martin (1920), 210 Mich. 139, 177 N.W ... ...
-
State v. Kruchten
...situation. Strategical decisions are not the kind which courts permit convicted felons to indulge in second guessing. United States v. Stoecker, 216 F.2d 51 (C.A.7, 1954); Application of Tomich, 221 F.Supp. 500 (D.C.Mont., 1963); Casey v. Overlade, 129 F.Supp. 433 (D.C.Ind., 'Advocacy is a ......
-
State v. Boag
...undoubtedly reveal flaws of varying magnitude in the trial techniques of respected members of the bar. * * *" See United States v. Stoecker, 216 F.2d 51 at 52 (C.A.7, 1954) Defendant next contends that his rights were prejudiced because he was handcuffed and chained when he was brought into......
-
State v. Freeman
...record discloses no such inadequacy on the part of counsel in this case. We find the following statement from the case of United States v. Stoecker, 7 Cir., 216 F.2d 51, equally applicable 'Advocacy is a skill and art; easy to criticize, difficult to fairly appraise. Indeed, a post-mortem o......