Court Opinion

ID: 9848240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:15:14.428126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:09.276544
License: Public Domain

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:
*750“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.
*751The 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.