Court Opinion

ID: 9459766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:31:29.603212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:19.940196
License: Public Domain

DENNIS R. KNAPP, District Judge
(dissenting):
With deference to the distinguished jurists who concur in the majority opinion in this ease, I must respectfully dissent.
I would reverse only on the issue that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant defendant a continuance in order to permit his retained counsel to be present at the trial. It is well established that the matter of a continuance is in the sound discretion of the trial court and that the exercise thereof should not be disturbed on appeal except in case of clear abuse of same. United States v. Pigford, 4 Cir., 461 F.2d 648.
Upon the facts here, I am compelled in good conscience to conclude that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in its refusal to give counsel, retained by the parents of an indigent a week prior to the trial date, enough time to honor a prior commitment so that he might represent the defendant.
It is to be noted that defendant was accused of a serious offense carrying a severe penalty. Recognition of this, and the love borne by the parents for their son, no doubt spurred on the parents to procure, although belatedly, the sum of money necessary for employment of a lawyer of their choosing. That attorney was retained and the defendant clearly expressed his desire to have his services.
While it is true, as the majority points out, that no formal motion was presented to the court until the day of trial, I submit that the court made it clear that no such motion would be granted. I am constrained to assert most forcefully that no such technical application of the law should deprive any man, accused of a serious crime and presumed to be innocent, of any right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. We should not permit a right so fundamental to the whole concept of due process to be so limited. Counsel was not retained until December 11. On December 12, six days before the trial date, new counsel informed the trial judge of his problems and requested additional time. His request was summarily rejected. A later informal request by counsel in the presence of the U. S. Attorney was also refused in unequivocal language by the court.
The Government could not have been prejudiced, and possibly the defendant was not. And in this connection, I do not question the competency of defendant’s appointed counsel or the motives or integrity of the trial judge. But since there was absent a compelling reason for trial on that day, which was less than sixty (60) days from indictment, the denial of a continuance under the circumstances here offends a basis right inherent in the Sixth Amendment that one accused of crime have counsel of his own choosing represent him when such is possible; and I therefore believe defendant was denied due process of law.
I am in agreement with the premise of the majority that stability and uniformity in the application of the law requires within reason resort to “stare de-cisis.” However, I cannot agree that Pigford is controlling under the facts of the instant case. I believe sincerely it is distinguishable on the facts. In applying the above principle in criminal cases, it is essential to the preservation of basic constitutional guarantees that we do so guardedly.
Any doubt as to the consistency of the facts or in their interpretation in these cases should be resolved by the court in favor of the defendant.
In the instant case, I submit that any such doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. I believe it to be sufficient to require reversal. Accordingly, I would reverse.