Opinion ID: 1474108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: The Exclusion of One of Defendant's Counsel.

Text: The last two points to be discussed deal with counsel. Defendant says that the exclusion of his counsel was error, and that the prosecutor was guilty of gross misconduct to the prejudice of defendant. We deal first with the exclusion of one of defendant's trial counsel This counsel was questioning an employee of the Department of State who had prepared the registration form. Counsel was seeking testimony as to where the witness thought the statute authorized Item 11 of the form, and as to the meaning of Item 11. The Court had said, If there is a question incident to the issue, it is a question of law for the Court. A little later, after several similar attempts and objections, the following occurred: Defense counsel: I am not asking this witness for a statement of law, if the Court please. He prepared these forms. He said he prepared these forms from the statute. I think it is a fair and reasonable question to ask him what portion of this statute this question was taken from. After all, he prepared them, we did not prepare them. If he does not know, who does know? The Court: The objection has been sustained. Defense counsel: Now, if the Court please, I think your Honor has foreclosed us from a very important line of inquiry into this case. I think in view of your Honor's rulings throughout the Government's testimony and throughout the defendant's testimony, I charge that your Honor is biased in favor of the Government and prejudiced against this defendant. I say that this defendant has no alternative but to rest his case. Government counsel: Do I understand  The Court: Any further questions? Government counsel: No, we have no further questions at this time. The Court: You may be excused, Mr. Witness. (Witness excused.) Government counsel: I understand the defendant rests. The Court: Has the defendant rested his case? Defense counsel: Yes, if the Court please. The Court: Is there any rebuttal? Government counsel: No, sir. The Court: Very well, the Jury will keep in mind the admonition [not to discuss, listen to any comment on, or form any opinion concerning, the case] and be back at 1:30. (Whereupon at 12:30 o'clock P. M. a recess was taken to 1:30 o'clock P. M.) After the recess, the Court, before the jury was brought back to the trial room, directed that the defense counsel concerned should no longer participate in the case. The Court noted that the defendant had two other able counsel, a copartner from a New York law firm, and a local practitioner. When counsel suggested that they had divided up the work and that the ejected counsel had done the preparation on some items still to come, the Court suggested that remaining counsel take additional time to get ready on their new work. A study of the record shows that defendant had adequate representation from that time on. Although the Court's ruling, ejecting counsel, was out of the presence of the jury, defendant suggests that he was prejudiced because the jury could later see that this counsel was no longer active. Gaug ing such influence, if any, would be a very subjective job; at best the prejudice would be remote. In this case, moreover, work between counsel was divided up all of the way at both tables. It appears that the trial court's action was perfectly proper. At any rate no prejudice has been shown and as far as we can see none existed to the defendant's case. Defendant's argument here, for the most part, is more of an attempt to vindicate counsel, or at least to suggest that there should have been a contempt trial before the lawyer was ejected, than to show prejudice to himself. If defendant's unwarranted explosion succeeded in the sense of obtaining a new trial, there would be put in the hands of all defense attorneys a highly useful but foul technique.