Opinion ID: 359861
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the background events

Text: 71 Appellant, a physician, had practiced his profession in the District of Columbia since 1939. When, in 1974, he was subpoenaed to appear as a witness before a grand jury, he retained Allen M. Hutter as his sole counsel. Later that year, appellant was charged in a 19-count indictment with unlawful distribution of controlled substances. 4 The gravamen of the indictment was that he had effectively sold preludin and ritalin to numerous persons by writing prescriptions without benefit of proper physical examinations or medical histories. Sometime thereafter, appellant requested Mr. Hutter to seek the addition of a skilled trial lawyer. 5 Dovey J. Roundtree was contacted and retained in the shared expectation that she would serve appellant at trial. 72 As fate would have it, appellant was not destined for an early trial. The grand jury returned a second indictment charging 35 drug violations, and then a superseding 35-count indictment; the Government dropped the first two indictments and appellant with Ms. Roundtree first appearing as counsel moved for dismissal of the third. On authority of this court's holding in United States v. Moore, 6 the District Court granted the motion without prejudice, but on the Government's appeal the case was remanded for further proceedings in light of the Supreme Court's pending review of Moore. 7 Eventually, the Court reversed the decision in Moore, 8 whereupon the District Court vacated its order of dismissal and set the case for trial. 73 Five days before trial was to commence, appellant learned from Mr. Hutter that Ms. Roundtree had indicated a desire to terminate her services. Appellant attempted to contact her but did not succeed until she responded to his telegram late the following day, a Thursday. Despite his entreaties, she refused to continue as counsel, and on Friday she filed a motion for leave to withdraw. On Monday morning, the date upon which trial was to begin, the District Court heard the motion. Ms. Roundtree explained that I do not believe . . . that I have a defense, adding that she and Mr. Hutter were working at cross-purposes. 9 In response to the court's ensuing inquiry, Mr. Hutter stated that he was ready for trial but that he would like appellant to speak. 74 Indulged that opportunity, appellant declared that he was surprised and shocked by Ms. Roundtree's decision and anguish(ed) because my reputation and livelihood are at stake. 10 He explained that he had picked Ms. Roundtree both because of her experience 11 and because she, unlike Mr. Hutter, was black: 75 Although Mr. Hutter is a well qualified lawyer, I do not feel he is able to handle the case alone without the assistance of someone who has the skill (of) Attorney Roundtree . . . . I do not want her to stay since she doesn't want to create an atmosphere of inadequacy, but getting a seasoned trial lawyer to replace her is difficult. I have to secure a new lawyer who (must) of necessity become familiar with the case. 12 76 From my observation at the beginning, I felt Mr. Hutter needed assistance. Since I relate to the black community, I spoke to him and he brought in Attorney Roundtree who is capable. 13 77 I, therefore, request Your Honor to grant an extension of time of thirty to sixty days before the case comes up for trial . . .. ( 14 I do not want Miss Roundtree to drop out of the case (but) I am concerned with her continuing to represent me in view of the position she has taken within the last several days. 15 78 The Government opposed continuance on the grounds that many weeks had been spent in preparation, that many witnesses had been summoned and that appellant should have been ready for trial. The court, noting Mr. Hutter's competence and experience which no one denies felt that 79 this is certainly a unique situation where the defendant states on the record in open Court that he wants an additional attorney because the additional attorney would happen to be black . . . . 80 As a matter of fact, for the jury, Dr. Burton, to feel sympathy for you or decide the case on the basis of your attorney's color and your color or Mr. Kogan (Government counsel) or my color or anything like that, that isn't a consideration that the jury could ( ) properly weigh. 16 81 Responding personally, appellant insisted that (i)n the black community, blacks relate to blacks better, some relate better, 17 but added, I am a citizen of this country and you represent the government and whatever you say, I will abide by it really. 18 The judge then ordered trial to commence on the next morning, and after eight days of trial the jury convicted on 28 counts. 19