Court Opinion

ID: 9473770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:38:57.91779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:43.256774
License: Public Domain

BEEZER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result but on a much narrower ground. The state court judge in this case reasonably concluded that in order to adequately prepare his defense, appellant needed to make a certain number of local and long distance phone calls, and to have access to a runner, investigator, and expert witness. The court ordered various custodial officials to permit appellant access to these resources, but later expressly found that its order was violated. Under these circumstances, we can conclude that appellant’s due process rights were violated without having to address the difficult issue of the exact scope of the right to prepare a defense. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977); Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); United States v. Wilson, 690 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 205, 78 L.Ed.2d 178 (1983). I therefore concur without expressing any opinion on the application of these three cases to the case at bar.