Case Name: PEOPLE v. SUMERACKI
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1950-01-12
Citations: 326 Mich. 748
Docket Number: Docket No. 68, Calendar No. 42,922
Parties: PEOPLE v. SUMERACKI.
Judges: Bushnell, J., concurred with Reid, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 326
Pages: 748–755

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. SUMERACKI.
1. Criminal Law — Appointment of Defense Counsel — Pair Trial.
Defendant, one of 22 tried on charge of conspiracy to corrupt the State legislature by bribery, who was not present during the first 3 of the 6 days the trial court was engaged in impaneling a jury, was afforded opportunity by the court to participate in drawing the jury and in challenging jurors, did not ask for counsel and voluntarily sat without counsel during the ensuing 2 months of the trial, was not so prejudiced in his rights that he was, on that account, denied a fair trial.
2. Same — Participation in Conspiracy Trial Without Counsel— Due Process.
In trial of 22 persons on charge of conspiracy to corrupt the State legislature by bribery, where defendant who had been a legislator for 2 terms-was not shown to have been unable to employ counsel, to have requested counsel nor been refused counsel, and it appears he made replies to the court in response to opportunities afforded him by the court to participate in the trial in propria persona, obviously allowed the court to conclude he was satisfied to participate without counsel in trial lasting 2 months and whose rights were adequately protected by counsel for other defendants in like circumstances with him and in the same case, was not denied due process by reason of lack of counsel.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 2] 14 Am Jur, Criminal Law, § 167; 53 Am Jur, Trial, § 25.
[1, 2] Accused’s constitutional right to assistance of counsel. 84 US L ed 383.
Appeal from Ingham; Simpson (John) J., presiding.
Submitted May 19, 1949.
(Docket No. 68, Calendar No. 42,922.)
Decided January 12, 1950.
Rehearing granted February 28, 1950.
See 328 Mich 164.
Adam W. Sumeracld and others were convicted of a conspiracy to corrupt the legislature of the State of Michigan hy bribery.
Affirmed.
Stephen J. Roth, Attorney General, Edmund E. Shepherd, Solicitor General, Daniel J. O’Hara, Assistant Attorney General, and Richard B. Foster, Special Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Frank G. Schemanske, for appellant Sumeracld.

Opinion:
Reid, J.
(dissenting). Defendant, with several others, was informed against, tried, convicted and sentenced for conspiracy to corrupt the 1939 Michigan State legislature and members thereof by the giving and taking of bribes. In general the most important facts concerning the trial are set forth in People v. Hancock, ante, 471, People v. Omacht, ante, 505, People v. Cooper, ante, 514, and cases of other codefendants decided by this Court on January 9, 1950. Many of the errors relied on by defendant Sumeracki were ruled upon by this Court in those cases, and it is unnecessary again to repeat them.
There are certain matters peculiar to Sumeracki's case, however, to which matters we will refer.
When the case was taken up for trial and impaneling of the jury begun, on June 12, 1944, defendant Sumeracld was in the service of the United States army, and was not present at the beginning of the trial. The court noted his absence on that day and the nest day. On June 15th, defendant Sumeracld appeared in court and answered the roll call and on that day, when various defendants were being asked as to their challenges to jurors, the record shows the following:
"The Court: Mr. Sumeracki?
"Mr. Sumeracki: Defendant Sumeracki is satisfied with the jury at the present time."
A similar question was asked and like answer returned on the following day, June 16th.
At the conclusion of the testimony offered by certain defendants the following occurred:
"Mr. Schemanske: The defendant Kronk rests, your Honor, please also the defendant Stanley Dombrowski.
"The Court: All right.
"Mr. Sigler [special assistant prosecuting attorney] : Stanley Dombrowski?
"Mr. Schemanske: Those are the only two I represent.
"Mr. Sigler: I thought you represented Adam Sumeracki.
"Mr. Schemanske: Oh, no, I don't represent Adam Sumeracki.
"Mr. Sumeracki: Your Honor, the defendant Sumeracki rests."
Defendant Sumeracki is not an attorney. The court was informed that Sumeracki was not represented by an attorney, but the court did not inform the defendant of his right to be represented by an attorney. Defendant at no time expressly announced that he appeared in propria persona. It is not shown that defendant Sumeracki understood the effect of his statements in open court, upon the question of his right to be represented by counsel, nor that he intended to waive any such right. He did not cross-examine any witness, object to any testimony or to any statements of counsel. The court did not inform him of his right to be sworn as a witness, and of his right to argue the case. The defendant Sumeracki was not in fact sworn as a witness.
The trial lasted from June 12,1944, to August 12th following. There were 22 defendants in all. The trial was lengthy and it was practically impossible for defendant Sumeracki to effectively conduct his own defense.
In view'- of the whole situation as above recited, we conclude that defendant Sumeracki was not given a fair trial.
The case should be remanded to the trial court with instructions to set aside the verdict and judgment, and grant defendant a new trial.
Bushnell, J., concurred with Reid, J.