Court Opinion

ID: 9453411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:12:13.147389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:38.546921
License: Public Domain

BASTIAN, Senior Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
I would affirm the judgment of the District Court. In addition, I want to add a few comments about petitioner’s contention of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Chief Judge of the District Court, who tried this case, had the opportunity to observe the conduct of the trial and was better able than we, who have before us only the cold print of the proceedings, to evaluate the calibre of trial counsel’s defense. Furthermore, from his vantage the District Judge correctly considered petitioner’s contention in this respect, as is shown in his opinion:
“The matter now at hand arose on January 26, 1966, when petitioner filed a pro se motion for vacation of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner’s motion made the single allegation that he had been deprived of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel with particular reference to the trial presentation of the insanity defense. After consideration of the motion and the files and records of the case, this Court denied the motion on May 16, 1966, without a hearing.” [Emphasis added.] Heard v. United States, 263 F.Supp. 613, 614 (D.D.C. 1967).
This denial of the motion without a hearing was, in my opinion, clearly within the discretion granted by the statute and we should not disturb this discretion in the absence of impelling reasons, which I do not think exist in this case. It should be noted that the Supreme Court recognized this statutory discretion in Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 3, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 1071, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963), by paraphrasing the language of the statute:
“‘[A] prompt hearing’ on the motion is required ‘[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief * * *.’ ”
Finally, the District Judge correctly considered himself bound by the majority opinion in the direct appeal of this case, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 37, 348 F.2d 43 (1965). Even though the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel was not raised by counsel for appellant in the original appeal, this court did consider the matter, and nothing new has been added by the pleadings in the present proceedings.