Court Opinion

ID: 9461313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:11:17.065237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:00.029037
License: Public Domain

LUMBARD, Circuit Judge
(concurring, with whom Judge HAYS also concurs) :
I concur.
While I agree completely with the result reached in the main opinion, I think it appropriate to express my views on the merits of this ease.
The district judge was clearly erroneous in finding that Johnson’s trial counsel requested a charge on a lesser included offense. As is apparent from the colloquy between the trial court and defense counsel (opinion at p. 1311, n. 6) the deliberate strategy of Johnson’s trial counsel was to separate the events that occurred on the roof from those in the apartment by stressing that Johnson was not present when the murder occurred and that the prior events in the apartment were unrelated. If this could be done, Johnson would be home free on the murder charge. This attempt to have Johnson completely exonerated would have been seriously jeopardized if the jury was given the additional choice of finding Johnson guilty of assault. As such the failure of Johnson’s appellate counsel to raise the refusal to charge a lesser included offense on appeal does not in any way “shock the conscience” of the reviewing court. United States v. Wight, 176 F.2d 376, 379 (2d Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 950, 70 S.Ct. 478, 94 L.Ed. 586 (1950).