*1 ORDER ON REHEARING rehearing, several ocean car
riеrs have moved for leave to file briefs However, appears amicus curiae. sought issues be raised
such concern the briefs effect transporta
of our on the ocean decision cargoes
tion of containerized —those “packages” normally opened sealed inspected carrier at time lading. issues a bill motions The
are denied. Since the case in before us shipment solely subject
volves a bulk
piece count, questions raised thus
will have to wait another for deci opinion
sion. We intimate no on them. Appellee’s petition nothing contains
new; points reiterated have all been opinion, correctly
covered—in our —in opinion. our earlier petition rehearing denied. KILKENNY, Judge, Circuit would
grant rehearing, opinion recall judgment
and affirm the of the lower
court.
UNITED STATES of America ex rel.
Countee WILLIAMS,
Petitioner-Appellant, TWOMEY,
John J. Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 74-1071.
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
Argued 19, Nov. 1974.
Decided Jan. 1975.
Rehearing Rehearing En Banc
Denied March *2 he, petitioner’s claim that
Court process of the due clause of the violation Amendment to the United Fourteenth Constitution, was denied the ef- States of counsel. fective assistance facts, we are mindful stating which Rule the strictness with 52 оf the enjoins Rules of Civil Procedure Federal findings respect the of fact of the us to they clearly er- Court unless District reading findings of those roneous. Our following situation. reveals 12, 1968, April Williams, peti- Countee tioner, Brock, Alonzo and Juan Costillo were charge arrested on a of burglary of a television set from furniture store. The arrests were made the riot- ing looting that followed the assassi- nation of Dr. Martin King, Jr., Luther atmosphere, and in the noticed Court, District Mayor Daley’s “of order regarding looters and the widespread public displeasure over the destruction following the heinous assassination of King.” Dr.
The state court before which er was immediately brought set bail at $5,000. meeting bail, Not he wаs confined in County Cook Jail until the time of the trial. Averbook, 111., Chicago, J. Charles for petitioner-appellant. 24, 1968, July petitioner having mean- Scott, Gen., while been Atty. Chicago,
William J. indicted for the aforesaid 111., Gen., burglary, an Lipsky, Atty. Asst. arrest warrant was Nolan issued 111., against petitioner, Springfield, respondent-appellee. for and his bail was tem- $10,000. porarily increased to Due to SWYGERT, Judge, Before Chief Jail, County confusion at the Cook CUMMINGS, Judge, Circuit and WY there, authorities did not locate him ZANSKI, Judge.* Senior District case was removed from the call 31, July of the Circuit Court. WYZANSKI, Judge. Senior arraigned, assigned was Judge his case was appeal judge from the District Wilson for and the This is hearing appointed Bradley, Esq., lawyer full after Paul denial Court’s petition ha- on the staff of the Public findings, of release on Defender Wilson, attacking Judge. handled cases before corpus sentence of im- beas represent petitioner. twenty years day, im- On same for ten prisonment Bradley, although Mr. he had not then by Circuit Court for posed Illinois opportunity County following jury had an discuss the case verdict Cook petitioner, pretrial filed guilty the crime of motions. finding petitioner judge held the case on the princi- trial call burglary of a television set. The Friday, August here and in the District pal issue raised * Judge Senior District Wyzanski, Jr., Charles Edward Massachusetts, District of sitting by designation. burglary. alleged Petitioner through continuing July 31 and give the last names аddresses of engaged individuals, they but testified were these charge against an- of a murder the trial neighborhood.” Wilson, from defendant other seemingly had no conference with also found that The District with his case. or concern one of the discussions between “Prior *3 petitioner August 2, on Bradley and 2, 1968, Mr. Judge Wilson called August Bradley prosecutor] and Mr. Mr. [the trial. That 112 case for was petitioner’s (1) possibility discussed the Friedman was the date he taken into days from plea in return for recommenda- 38, guilty a custody. Illinois ch. 103— Rev.Stat. § (2) sentencing the and situation tions (d) person charged that a 5(a), requires respect 120-day term. Mr. with custody offense and held in that the state indicated did Friedman days tried within 120 from the be must witnеsses; if it could find its know custody he was taken into or he date Bradley convey stated that he would Mr. discharged therefrom. be If a de- must to plea-sentencing offer his client continuance, the requests a the 120- fendant then went to meet with the again. run day period commences er.” trial, Bradley called for Mr. in- When 2, that, August “In one of the discussions on having the court been en- formed Bradley petitioner told he was not the trial gaged in murder of another de- [Mr.] that a Wilson, prepared for trial and continuance Judge before fendant unhap- Petitioner was would be needed. only [peti- had “talked the defendant py prospect the of a continuance maybe over ten minutes in thе tioner] signifi- the Bradley he and discussed bullpen. And at this time I am not ei- making request of their a for one.” cance ready ready to answer ther or to make a long are not informed as to how of whether there should determination [We likely.] continuance, continuance would have been I would like some time be prose- to defendant.” the to talk When Following one of the discussions be- (on what basis we are left cutor stated petitioner Bradley, Mr. the tween conjecture) that “the defendant has “petitioner latter indicated decided proceed,” he wishes indicated Mr. on the fact the gamble state added, Bradley “The defendant has indi- present not be able to its witness- would but, know, you I cated have to es for trial.” determinations make certain reconvened, the trial When was on this interests, whether it is in our best and to 2, August Mr. Bradley same did not re- my Judge client.” Then advise Wilson continuance, quest and “indicated stated, pass the “We will case.” There- go today.” wants to trial inquiry On there upon recess. judge, petitioner from the the confirmed Judge what the District found must petitioner requested this. If the had been the earlier have ten minute confer- continuance, judge, the under Illinois bullpen, in the ence the law, postponed could have the case for Mr. “that he told had been with days. there is no indication [But just prior and had left a tavern others long delay how the аctually would have arrest; employed he was at the been.] arrest; time had a his. finding fact, As an ultimate record.” The District that, seems, District Court concluded hearing “peti- at the also found him, tioner made decision to testified forward . Bradley, may trial “he told have been dur- with the [it making the decision to ing the recess before the When forward state be- trial, petitioner with the was motivated gan, but District does not part by spend the desire not clarify point,] addi- about four individuals County jail time in company tional Cook while in whose he was at the time of principal reason awaiting but bar however, been at our We, told possibility that was the choice the trial part of during behind at least notice, would, 2, short on such state Mr. Friday, August proceedings on courtroom, witnesses to to secure sufficient al- unable the state Bradley was in capaci- case.” prove its in what though do not know ty- on Au- commenced “Before Friedman prosecutor] its all gust apparently offered [the state attorney the names of petitioner’s re- gave Friday. The court in chief on are Sunday. three witnesses.” Saturday the State’s [We cessed over finding repug- clear whether this did Mr. Cohan not told what A quoted. Monday, last Au- nant to one recess. the weekend findings is only wit- between reconciliation called as his gust Mr. Cohan fact withheld the prosecutor petitioner. Before ness availablе until were testified, apparently his "witnesses Judge, petitioner *4 his for readiness opin- defendant stated Judge’s the trial, District in the accurately withholding be- this occurred and he had taking the stand ion, before that again not ask Bradley did Mr. if cause that he took warned not been state’s witness- availability of about would be record prior stand his that a reason event, We are not unmindful petition- es. any after In admissible. have may not made a Bradley court, why pros- Mr. state in the testify er did that, as we have inquiry last-minute conviction petitioner’s ecutor introduced record, noted, discussions on already in earlier the arrest- one of called and also Friedman, according day, same Mr. witnеss. a rebuttal as ing officers finding of the Dis- already-quoted to an The jury having petitioner, convicted Court, that the state did “indicated trict he was by sentenced the court to ten to witnesses,” its know if it find not twenty years imprisonment. Petitioner Bradley regarded that possibly Mr. sought higher review in a state court. by the representation continuing as a There appointed his counsel did not raise un- prosecutor was prosecutor which the the issue of effective assistance of trial professional duty to amend if der counsel, and the conviction was undis- change cir- of a had become aware turbed. Petitioner then filed in the cumstances.] United States District Court the instant Friday, began on When petition for habeas corpus. Alonzo that he August Bradley indicated Brock, apparently petitioner’s witness,- week, next present couldn’t testified found, as the Judge District in court another present there was and, disbelieve, it seems, at least did not Defender’s of- lawyer from Public “that he broke the furniture store win- Judge fice, Apparently, a Mr. Cohan. dow and that he burglary committed the to act as authorized Mr. Cohan Wilson petitioner was charged. He substitute, him as as- appointed many stated that people not were on the counsel signed or co-counsel petitioner’s street. At trial, the time of as to whether er. There no indication Brock had been declared mentally incom- of Mr. Co-
Judge anything Wilson knew petent to stand but Bradley [Mr.] from the office except he was han not was aware of this.” does not [It in find- But of the Public Defender. appear regained when Brock his mental ings, the United States competence so that he became a useable “had been en- that Mr. states Cohan witness.] representing defend- gaged previously In support petition, this of the hearings,” petitioner’s but preliminary ants at counsel felony trial.” the District was “Mr. first Court contended Cohan’s had been denied not as to whether the ef- informed fective assistance of partici- counsel. began, Emphasis the trial Mr. Cohan appointment laid on the late petitioner. wаs any of trial pated conference claim,” judge peti- [perhaps meaning er’s observed that include as had “decided counsel both Mr. and Mr. tioner forward with Cohan], decision, consulting apparently trial after with his attor- petitioner, ney counsel as well as him that more time advised prepare,” to trial on on coun- observation defense needed [an specific entirely supported by sel’s failure to move for a continuance the earlier ground findings which do not recite that the ad- did have ade- quate prepare, categorical.] time to on the failure vice was so “This decision hope was made in the the state defense counsel to call several witnesses seems, (including, it both the would be its burden of co-defend- unable to meet ant Brock and the alibi witnesses whose . circum- proof. . . Under names last addresses were un- stances the decision in the na- is more known), context, on his failure to ture of a tactical interview other choice. witnesses, potential noting only petitioner on the last minute it is worth really purported substitution of Mr. Cohan for Mr. knew whether the four Brad- counsel, witnesses, ley as defense defense alibi whose last names and ad- coun- present produce, failure to evidence actually sel’s dresses he could not alleged existed, so, burglary place took they and if whether could bе riot- ing looting (when, might if a continuance were requested.” located argued, confusion as to identity been The District also referred burglar might have likely), been points, some minor none which he re- and on defense counsel’s failure to warn significant: garded the Illinois if he took the stand his *5 rule, 120-day might which have resulted prior criminal record could be introduced imprisonment in 4 months more of be- into evidence. primary fore was not the reason petitioner’s behind decision for an imme- The United States District re- trial; diate that defense failed to counsel garded none grounds of those adequate witnesses; that, call character al- prove petitioner to was denied his though аppeared Brock’s name on the constitutional to effective assist- co-defendant, prose- indictment as a the counsel, ance of petition. and denied the cution did not his volunteer address. judge The inexperience stated that of Finally, the District ruled that counsel, showing prejudice, absent of petitioner’s testimony at hearing the was not a sufficient enlarge pe- basis to not sufficient to his innocence. establish titioner, and that the “Court judge enlarge- The the having denied prejudice finds no is attributable to [not, ment or petitioner liberation of alleged inexperience.” judge The judge loosely says, having denied the observed that evidence of the had lоot- which, corpus, course, writ of habeas of offered, ing been might have been the hearing had been issued before oc- shown, testified, as Brock later at curred in the United States District many the time of the alleged crime not Court], appeal court to this followed. street, people were and that regard We this as a close case in “even if there were a factual basis for light of the enunciated rule several such a theory, defense evidence such [of times in this Circuit in order looting] might highly prejudi- have been prevail in a corpus petition habeas as cial,” so that not to have shown the loot- serting legal want of effective assistance ing question tactics, was “a of trial over case, petitioner in a must reasonable, experienced counsel prove counsel’s assistance was so judge pe- could differ.” noted that mockery” limited to make “a sham or titioner argue did not him that Lane, petitioner’s of 411 Sims he had known that his criminal record (7th 1969). F.2d Cir. might be introduced he would not have taken the stand. On what the District wholly agree with the Dis Judge regarded as “the crux of inexperience trict Court the mere of petitioner that his crimi- enough of risk is not in itself vise counsel against of be introduced assistance record could of effective nal want establish stand, nor does it if took the him counsel. that Mr. Cohan addressed appear even lawyer must Necessarily, every mind to a consideration his own experience. His without his career begin passing opportunity to advantage of inevitably ill-prepared so case is first rather than as a witness call a find justify toas presented or poorly expose of crim- him to a revelation without incompetence. Portia of his ing inal record. remarkably successful experience was disturbing is see at least a It also In estimat of Antonio. representative finding suggestion in the District Court’s the issue performance, ing counsel’s that, prosecutor perhaps innocently, had, has experience he how much represented August 2 on first he acted. but how well and then later no witnesses available accept as broad Nor do we witness, very produced a day appoint general proposition that counsel produced a further next then the week inevitably or ed on the charging the witness. Without rebuttal unprepared presumptively even faith, with bad we must prosecution depends the nature of trial. Much competent if defense wonder charge, known to of the evidence delay have at least asked for would not evi prosecution, of the available to the surprised by and if he was when produced at susceptible being dence who a appearance witnesses few defense, and of the оnce later indicated to be hours before had been coun experience and of defense capacity unavailable. the ease with sel. We are familiar with recited, Against just the factors the Phila which Mr. John Johnson of G. particular scrutinize with care the must early years of delphia bar (accord- himself evidence century represented clients successfully Judge, ing findings the District very who retained him moment at give weight which we must com- reached the client’s case was 52) manded Rule decided to *6 And, equal although could few 2. There is no doubt trial fac Johnson, many lawyers have the Mr. that, responding question to a direct skill, make ility, which panache judge, petitioner stаte trial from the champion a de ready them instanter proceed It cannot elected forthwith. the him at fendant who summons presumed petitioner was to- be that twelfth hour. unsophisticated, a crimi- tally had is lawyer inexperienced Yet when an appear nal record. Yet does from rep- appointed of trial only eighth grade record that he had seri- charged with as resent a defendant He not shown to have education. is put are burglary, ous a crime as we if he by been advised counsel par- in the inquiry as to his effectiveness sought not inevita- postponement, it was ticular matter. for, delayed be ble trial would say, days; quite possi- Mr. Brad- plain Here it neither аnother hundred might a ley bly request delay nor Mr. Co- a appointed who was first for week’s sought granted, particularly if Mr. han who trial counsel have been acted as they Cohan, counsel, days’ delay newly appointed had even a few so as chance, nor, was who had no investigate could Alonzo Brock said had case, ad- had Mr. and whose because of the murder named a co-defendant pros- Bradley to the a known chance to interview presumably dress Brock, who, ecutor, identify as we they could Alonzo nor to see if co-defendant know, exculpating peti- first story whose had a persons and locate four now tioner, knew to tell. said he which Brock was nоt loath names defendant neighbor- by in the impressed whom he believed lived are less [We testimony persons whose Moreover, not ad- of the four Cohan did alibi hood. know, Constitution, petitioner first names claimed to nesses. The ju- unlike the oath, because, tell, far so far as we can even to does not so as to dicial identity equal justice poor their promise this date has not been es- and to poor the rich. Yet it does not leave the tablished.] representation any to a which is in as- whole, have determined we pect pretrial, investigatory, of law for — it was a mistake shockingly inferior to what otherwise — have concluded District may expected prosecution’s knowing rights his and com- petitioner, representation. While criminal situation, de- as to his petently advised game participants which the are strategy liberately a matter expected ring to enter with a near trial, and, immediate to seek an decided skills, match in neither is it a sacrifice of right therefore, effectively waived his prisoners gladiators. unarmed postponement. seek defendant, represented whether Having eliminated the factor counsel, public chosen by agency, his or a himself, we then by petitioner waiver court-appointed lawyer, aor has the con- wheth with the issue squarely faced are stitutional to an advocate whose prоfession grossly incompetent er it was performance profes- meets a minimum for Messrs. and Co al conduct We, having standard. sional examined sought postponement han not to have lapses of the each in the instant speak they or one of them until individually collectively, both Brock and learn his with co-defendant petitioner convinced for habeas story willingness testify. and his corpus did not receive services of that all concluded that absent disinter county in the court. standard Illinois witnesses, risk in ested conclusion, reaching again our calling as the sole witness volved in any state that we have not modified himself, the defense defendant Judge’s the United States find- prior was vulnerable because of his crim ings. But we cannot refrain from ex- record, Brad inal the conduct of Messrs. pressing, our doubt whether there is in- delay ley seeking in not Cohan support finding deed evidence to his sufficiently investigate Brock’s role was stating willingness expected professional stand short have an immediate trial was motivated competent to warrant us ard of principally by govern- his belief that was de adjudicating ment had no available witnesses and was legal nied that effective assistance chiefly motivated his desire to guar process constitutes the due of law supposed avoid what he was another 120- process the due clause of anteed day delay. reаding Our of the record or, Amendment, as is some Fourteenth any did not disclose basis in the said, of counsel times assistance *7 express er’s statements for such a find- Amendment. clause of the Sixth are, contrary, ing. There indicia We are aware this decision petitioner’s received goes beyond inquiry whether as to prosecutor from before the case be- the state court trial was a or a sham gan witnesses, list of the state’s mockery. gone But we have not exploration by there was no anyone urged upon us, declaring point, of the state judge of how would have react- a presumption there is at least of failure suggestion to a postponement ed of a of of guarantee the constitutional to meet Maybe a week or two. the District merely assistance of counsel because de Judge pe- discerned motivation from attorney appointed on fendant’s has been appearance titioner’s and attitude as a day inexperienced in of or is witness before the United States errors, litigation, egregious or makes tac doubt, Court. No Lord Justice Bowen strategic, preparation, or in in con tical right was that a man’s state of mind is ference, witnesses, examining in in or There digestion. fact as his as much potential investigating calling or wit- from facial when the observer times
641 of or expressions the witness his de- bility of seeking a continuance became may testifying rightly in infer meanor nearly appoint- and where his impossible, However, or state. motive other mental ed counsel were forced to evaluate a may recall judge a cautious also that the very charge felony serious and recom- Queen declared first Elizabeth that we mend a critical decision regarding trial no window into other men’s have souls. strategy opportunity without even an dangerous it was to have Here inferred private meeting with their client. Un- petitioner’s motive when we are not I der these circumstances do not believe exactly sure from the record even what pro- that success can be the measure of state-appointed counsel told in him competence. possi- fessional While it is preceded peti- the brief conference which ble that Bradley and Cohan did not seek open court tioner’s declaration that he in through oversight lack continuance ready for was diligence, of it is also that Wil- proceed liams insisted that the trial McLaren, Judge In fairness to District based on his own hurried evaluation of applied bound we feel to add options judge- available. district rule enunciated in our earlier cases found chose trial that Williams petitioner, in to show that his order “in the the state would be hope assistance coun- constitutional of proof” unable its to meet of burden denied, prove sel had been must that the was “in the of a tactical this nature leading trial his conviction was a accept finding choice.” I would this or a mockery. sham Johnson United hold that under the circumstances of this States, 555, (7th 1970); 422 557 Cir. F.2d to, case Williams was entitled but did Dilella, 584, 354 United States v. F.2d receive, effective assistance of coun- (7th 1965). appeal 587 Cir. making in this critical sel decision. the rule. now hold broadened guarantees that the a crimi- Constitution out, majority points As the counsel for legal nal defendant assistance which 31, appointed July Mr. Williams was of profes- meets a minimum standard appointment made 1968. When the was representation. sionаl Mr. Bradley it was clear that would be significant unable to devote attention Judgment re- the District Court until Mr. Williams’ case the conclusion versed, with Court to direction progress. a murder trial then in Never- sentence and to vacate enlarge petitioner state court placed theless the Williams was days 120 from after 1968, August the trial call for a mere judgment the date of unless before our Wilson, days Judge ap- two later. he is brought then the Illinois attorney pointed Bradley to be Williams’ state authorities. August and who set the case for trial on SWYGERT, (concurring). Judge Chief presiding was over murder engaged and was was the result Although I concur difficulty fully in- thus aware so dif- I do majority, reached volved in the trial date. agree I while reasons. And ferent presumably Wilson also aware says gen- Wyzanski much of what fact incarcer- that Williams been assistance about the effective erally of his days for 110 at the time ated charged one defending counsel when arraignment and that Illinois offense, I not believe do awith becoming an im- therefore rule was record from it can be determined Williams portant both for *8 consideration were Cohan Bradley and this case Wil- Yet he called and for the state. profes- incompetent “grossly of guilty liams’ case for trial behalf efforts on conduct” their sional in the critical clear when Wil- my view record is of Williams. Bradley from derive instead liams’ case was first сalled had in this case problems of Illinois in consult with his client for been unable to the actions of State in a 10 or 15 minutes. This does position more than defendant Williams placing appear any laxity due to to to be choice as the advisa- reasoned where only conclud- had in terms of Williams’ “demand” Bradley’s part since situation day. previous murder ed his Bradley great for trial. While showed communicated were circumstances These reluctance about the situation and made request along with Judge Wilson to attempts several veiled to secure an ad- to Williams to talk time additional period ditional of time in which pre- to go to to his desire already indicated рare, Judge Wilson showed no hesitancy ensued, after recess A short trial. in the matter and in fact ended the con- in his conference held a Judge Wilson asking by directly Williams ference if he it be- conference During this chambers. go to trial. When wanted to Wil- still obvious perfectly came responded did, liams Judge Wil- in prepared not have concluded, son right, “All go Mr. Co- he and and that ahead. given him time Williams demanding trial. Yet And unprepared. fact in han were proceed will right now.” characterizing in persisted Wilson make, to motions to if originally suppress, any Brad- called, the case was 1. When things those should come when up to confer his lack of opportunity indicated ley State furnishes information. either to his reluctance and with Williams agreeable, Is that Mr. Friedman? ask a continuance: to trial or to MR. I FRIEDMAN: would think it would knows, Honor BRADLEY: As your MR. have been incumbent upon defense Wednesday came to this Court this case file any motions in the case itself when the and Attorney myself while the State’s arraignment case came off to His Honor’s jury engaged and then in a were the Court courtroom. It was Mr. Williams who has talked I have today. it was set over until although requested proceed, Mr. Bradley minutes ten defendant for maybe to the leaving out he is pointed on vacation. And I am not this time And at the bullpen. view the fact that we have a new or to make to answer ready ready either Publiс Defender here, Mr. Williams is the should be a of whether there determination requesting one who is answer- proceed, like some time I would continuance. ing and I ready, think he does so at his to the defendant. talk own peril. this in sus- We can’t keep THE COURT: MR. BRADLEY: IMay reply briefly? morning. all pension This man has been in since custody April answering ready? Is the State brought 12, 1968. He was to this court- And absolutely. FRIEDMAN: Yes, MR. room for the first time— he wishes has indicated the defendant demanding THE COURT: He is proceed. MR. BRADLEY: I understand certainly has indi- The defendant MR. BRADLEY: but I think that, he has I know, but, you cated effective assistance of counsel. And in try- to whether determinations make certain ing to this I am sure that expedite some to advise interests, my it is in our best agreеment sort of the State will provide client. things are they required provide will the case. THE pass COURT: enough time to make properly again called, case was a brief recess After motions for— a conference of Bradley at the request making THE COURT: I am not up my time Bradley At this was held chambers. at we will time, mind cover that area again involved stressed the time problems get when we there. reminded the court that Mr. would Cohan given THE COURT: Have him you a list trying the case: anything witnesses, or yet? Judge, MR. know, BRADLEY: as you MR. FRIEDMAN: Pardon me? this matter came off ar- up Wednesday THE COURT: Have furnished you him raignment. At time I was in the mid- with a list of witnesses? dle aof murder trial and didn’t make any MR. BRADLEY: Yes, Your Honor, motions. And Mr. preliminary Coyntee was furnished to the Public Defender. has [sic] indicated he wants to trial THE COURT: The oral statements But I today. would ask that the State written statements? agree waiving that we are not preliminary MR. FRIEDMAN: I will offer no oral starting jury motions pick today, statements of this defendant. will they furnish us with list of THE COURT: There have been no writ- witnesses with if an indication there ten confessions? oral any statements and an indication MR. FRIEDMAN: sir. No, going any physical evidence to be introduced, THE an indication if COURT: certainly I don’t think we have any there is any written statements. And at problem. *9 right time MR. this we would like to reserve our BRADLEY: As to this point—
643
go
counsel
cannot be
upon
to
relied
that Williams’ decision
to
I believe
trial.
informed or intelli-
validate his
Faced as
not an
he was
to
confusing
did not
a
information,
therefore
welter of
and
decision
in-
gent
cluding
of
right
suggestion
effective assistance
a
to
the
his
waive
.state
only
might
have en-
ready,
explanation
could
not be
a fast
Williams
of
counsel.
seeking
delay
by
day
the 120
assistance
rule and
such
the
joyed
conse-
appointed
and his
quences
seeking
both him
of
for
continuance
sufficient
at the
against
case
to evaluate
end of the 120
attorneys
day period, an offer of a
possible- witness-
plea bargain,
consider the
and to
and the prospect
him
of a trial
very
His deci-
day,
in his defense.
be called
Williams’
es
decision to fore-
product
much a
fully
was' so
go
prepared
to trial
defense
only
sion
could
delay in set-
inexcusable
been
an act of desperation.2
the state’s
of
By
appointing
arraignment
delaying both the
ting
an
trial and
appoint-
demanding
man is
tri-
workload carried
heavy
by
COURT: The
THE
experienced
able District
without
tried
al
today
preparation?
this
I didn’t
we
case,
BRADLEY: As to
point
present
compelled
MR.
to the con-
right
grant
his
to statements.
clusion
failure to
to waive
continuance
want
waiving
You wouldn’t
be
to allow counsel at least
THE COURT:
some time to pre-
for
the trial constituted
an
pare
it.
abuse of
clear
in
BRADLEY:
I wanted
discretion”.
nied Williams sufficient time to think rely
about his it cannot decision and now support
on that decision to his convic-
tion. BELT HARBOR
INDIANA COMPANY, RAILROAD Plaintiff-Appellee, al., et of America STATES
UNITED Defendants-Appellants. 74-1031, 74-1101.
Nos. Appeals, Court
United States Circuit. Seventh
Argued Nov. 1974. Feb.
Decided 23, 1975. Denied June
Certiorari
See