*2 TRASK, Before BROWNING and Cir Judges WILLIAMS,* cuit District Judge
TRASK, Judge: Circuit Scott was after jury convicted trial in district court of failure to file income for years tax returns 1971 and 1972 in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7203. He was year § sentenced 1to on count, each the sentences to run concur- rently. This appeal is from the convic- tion and the trial court’s denial of for arrest judgment, motions and for Scott, a new trial. who is attor- ney, represented himself at trial but had post-trial for counsel his motions and on appeal. Appellant styles himself a “national tax resistance leader.”1 He admitted at trial that he had not filed the returns that, argued but since his failure was based on his constitutional beliefs reading Supreme various Court * Spencer Williams, organiza- Honorable was National Chairman of an He United States Committee,” Judge “Tax for Rebellion District the Northern tion called District Cal- ifornia, sitting by designation. resistance to the Internal which advocated refusing laws to file income Revenue by filing blank ones. tax returns arrest of for moved After Scott cases, within his failure not willful part trial based a new judgment meaning statute. agent. of the alleged activities presented for de- main issues are Two agent interfered claimed Scott The first involves by this court. cision his trial by burglarizing presence of to influence headquarters, attempting *3 at trial. group elevator at jury by riding on the imper- was whether second.is making prej- house with them and court singled prosecution for missibly out Scott, in engaging remarks about udicial government. surveillance, making a bomb electronic undercov- During the trial an much of adversely the court house to threat Revenue Service agent of the Internal er lying to and mis- jury, and influence the among group of fellow tax present was mo- This to his detriment. leading Scott prepara- were aiding resisters who those supported by affidavits of tion was agent, of Scott’s defense. tion at the trial. accompanied had Scott who Swan, Swanson, Jeff was an alias James however, affidavits, did not sub- These in the Illinois Tax Rebellion Com- officer allegations any in the above stantiate According to his affidavit mittee. manner, posed in rather were but direct to travel an- was invited to the trial agent speculation terms protester tax He other from Indiana. opportunity pur- might have had the given permission by his Internal was and instruc- copies cases loin Xerox in superior Service and arrived Revenue Only one con- by the defense. used tions Fresno, trial shortly after California that was positive statement tained attending began. His stated mission in agent had counseled Scott protesters was to meet tax the trial testify agent’s on his own behalf. sympathizers superiors to advise allegation countered each affidavit activity. illegal any planned violent or with a denial. The district the motion was in the courtroom Swanson court, ruling the affida- on the basis of meetings in a the trial and at held at his observations as the trial vits sessions. day each after the court motel motions. judge, denied the from the received instructions He had Appellant argues strenuously Internal Revenue Service counsel Chi- group among the presence of Swanson any way cago to interfere with assisting him his defense planning trial. Swanson Scott’s and re- proceeding the entire poisoned specifically denied in his affidavit outright and dismissal reversal quires any any at time offered advice to he had least, a new very a remand for or at the as or advisors to how he or Scott upon the he relies Specifically trial. they proceed should in the defense of fourth, amendments fifth and sixth He also specifically case. denied that his ar- predicates constitutional for engaged eavesdropping in electronic had guments. anyone any kind or had caused else to so, Looking attempted or that he had to influ- first at do fourth amendment, jurors any threats. we or made bomb note that was ence Swanson presented was no to the not a witness at There evidence trial and that no court, here, any nor infor- made that he district contention obtained evidentiary passed was to the documents material mation which except for incident. was introduced prosecution one whether reported prosecution helpful or harmful. There to the was therefore Swanson illegal search he had members for verbal evidence learned rule, party illegally exclusionary mate- within the had inserted no unlawful Scott’s presented seizure of documents rial into exhibit. This court and no violation of the fourth separate later the basis for criminal amend ment. Hoffa v. charges.
H91
acquainted with the
300-03,
accused
87 S.Ct.
and his
L.Ed.2d 374
at-
torney. He
solicited
the accused
and his counsel to work for them in the
does
Neither
the fact of Swan
preparation of the case for trial. He
during conversations
presence
son’s
re
attended conferences between counsel
garding
strategy
violate
for the accused and witnesses and law-
rights.
fourth amendment
Swanson was
yers. The court held that this invidious
present because he was a member and
intrusion denied the defendant of his
of the Tax
group
official
Rebellion
right
to effective assistance of counsel
accepted as such albeit he was also an
under the fifth and sixth amendments
agent of the
undercover
Internal Reve
prejudice
actual
need not be shown.
In
regard,
nue Service.
this
the Su
Coplon was a ease of intercepted tele-
preme
quoted
approval
Court
phone conversations between Judith Co-
Hoffa :
plon and
attorney
her
both before and
*4
“ ‘The risk
being
overheard
an during her trial on espionage charges.
eavesdropper
betrayed
or
by an in- The court held that a hearing should be
former or deceived
identity
as to the
conducted and that
if the interceptions
of one with whom one
proba-
deals is
occurred a new trial should
granted.2
bly
inherent
the conditions of hu-
cases,
In both
these
as well as in
society.
man
It is the kind of risk we
States,
345,
O’Brien v. United
386 U.S.
necessarily assume whenever we
”
1158,
(1967),
87
18
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d 94
and
303,
speak.’
385
U.S.
87 S.Ct. at
States,
26,
Black v. United
385 U.S.
87
Quoting, Lopez
v.
States,
United
190, 17
(1966),
L.Ed.2d 26
S.Ct.
there was
427, 465,
1381,
373 U.S.
83 S.Ct.
10
an interference with the confidential re-
(1963)
462
L.Ed.2d
(dissenting opinion).
lationship between the accused and his
We find no merit to the fourth amend-
employed counsel regarding
impend-
ment claims.
ing
Here,
trial and the trial itself.
it,
Other
than to list
contrary, appellant
had waived or
again
particularize
does not
the basis
right
renounced his
pre-
counsel and
upon which he claims the shelter of the
for trial and tried the case
pared
without
fifth amendment. He does assert that
attorney.
He apparently had enlisted
urged him
Swanson
to take the witness
assistance of a group
of fellow tax
stand and that
the Internal Revenue
help
him in his own defense.
resisters
grossly
Service so
intruded in the de
from the tax
Others
rebellion ranks who
strategy
fense
conferences that the fifth
joined
appeared,
meetings
held
sixth
and
amendments were violated. during the trial.3
principal
upon
cases relied
are Cald
States,
Appellant
well
asserts that
U.S.App.D.C.
v. United
92
where
355,
(1953),
the sixth amendment to
Coplon
ship between the accused
defendant
and his advis-
g.,
and his counsel. E.
United
v.
the same
States
ors carries
sixth amendment
Rosner,
1213,
(2d
485 F.2d
1227-28
Cir.
proscription
interference
between at-
1973),
(without
torney
prejudice),
cert. denied
and client. No cases are cited for
950,
3080,
94 S.Ct.
417
41 L.Ed.2d
proposition and we have
found
(1974);
Brown,
United
672
States v.
none. On the
484
contrary,
relationship
418,
(5th
1973),
F.2d
424-25
Cir.
lawyer
cert.
carry
and client
between
does
960,
denied,
1490,
415 U.S.
94
rights
S.Ct.
responsibil-
different
set of
(1974); Taglianetti
L.Ed.2d 575
v.
Unit
ities than
between an individual and
558,
(1st
ed
569-71
relationships
his friends. Other
Cir.
recog-
aff’d,
1968),
law,
nized
either
statutory law or
law,
also United
common
likewise
See
carry particular
Rispo,
v.
(3d
460 F.2d
rights
responsibilities,
States
975-77
g.,
e.
husband
wife;
1972);
Bullock,
Cir.
patient; priest
doctor and
States
(5th
F.2d 59
Appellant’s
confessor.
Cir.
upon
United States
reliance
Alderisio,
(10th
1970).
bring
Hoffa to
F.2d 20
his friends within the
But see
Long,
South Dakota v.
465 F.2d
definition of “counsel” for sixth amend-
1972),
denied,
purposes
cert.
placed.
is not well
In
*5
discussing Coplon
(where
L.Ed.2d 263
and Caldwell
Rosner,
The courts in
intrusion
Brown and
attorney
was between
client)
Taglianetti all
Supreme
the Hoffa
considered the
hypothesized
Court
O’Brien,
Black,
cases of
there
Court
that
could be
Hoffa and
gross-
an intrusion so
ly prejudicial
they
concluded that
require
that even a
did not
new trial
se rule.
impermissible.
per
agree.
a
We
would be
The Court con-
tinued, however, by saying that the Hof-
unique
On the
facts of this case
remotely approach
fa case did not
such a
that appellant
we find
preju
suffered no
situation.
from the mere
govern
dice
fact of the
ment’s limited intrusion into the
“This is
so because of the clinching
appellant
group of
Ap
his
basic fact
friends.
case that
pellant’s defense
this case
petitioner’s
none of the
was an
incriminating
open book.
filing
He admitted not
statements which Partin heard were
returns and based
made
his defense on his own
presence
counsel,
of
novel theories of law.
hearing
counsel,
example,
For
he
of
or in connection in
claimed that
any way
sixteenth amendment
legitimate
authorizing
prop
the income tax was
of the
not
Test
prosecution.
Fleet
pe-
ratified,
erly
that federal
titioner’s
reserve notes
statements
related to the
legal
are not
tender and
commission of
therefore he did
quite
separate of-
report
income,
not have to
attempted
them as
bribery
jurors—
fense —
that he did not
and the
have to file tax returns
statements were made to Par-
they
if
felt
tin
he
would
out of the
incriminate
presence
law-
him.
advanced
yers.”
Scott
these
theories to
U.S. at
1195
didn’t
file
tax
returns
that
of ac-
recognize
specter
that
We
prosecuted?
Government has not
in the de-
If
interference
government
tive
so,
you
I think
should make it
chilling one.
known
a criminal case is a
fense
to Mr. Couris so he could
However,
unique
of this
start
indict-
facts
ing them.
justice
that
the ends of
conclude
we
requiring a new
not be served
would
Well, your Honor,
“MR. MATONIS:
that
possibility
there
no
because
my job
it is not
lawyer
help
by the al-
prejudiced
the defendant
Government
people
cases of
who
interference.
leged
have not
have or
filed their
income
(Supp.).
tax returns.” R.T. at 26
major assignment
The second
Thus,
clearly distinguishable
this case is
error is that
was discriminatorily
Scott
Steele,
from United
supra,
States
prosecution
out for
because
singled
of his
where the court was convinced that
opposition to the
vocal
income taxt
In
knowledge
had actual
prevail
allegation
order to
in this
appel
other violators but compiled background
must
proving
lant
bear
burden of
reports
prosecuted
only those who
prima
facie
requires
least
case. This
public
against
had taken a
compli-
stand
first
demonstrate
Here,
ance with the census law.
appel-
similarly
generally
others
situated
have
lant has
demonstrated
prosecuted
not been
for conduct similar
government had an announced policy of
for which
prosecuted.
to that
he was
vigorous enforcement of the tax law
Secondly, appellant must show that his
against
public
who
those
took a
stand
impermissible
selection
based on an
filing
against
returns. There was no ev-
race,
ground
religion
such as
or his exer
presented
idence
right
cise of his first amendment
to free
prosecute
did not
others who failed to
Berrios,
speech. United States v.
file returns but who did not take a vocal
(2d
1974);
F.2d
see Unit
stand on the issue.
It is not surprising
Steele,
ed
States v.
“THE COURT: you Let me ask within sound discretion of the trial you Do people judge. this: know other Thompson, who United States v. corrupt, squandering, government. criminal pay it. I cash for Whatever do and wherev- me, Thievery especially My nauseates very when I go I do it first class. life is er I Being employed, am the victim. self I good, many have but it me to see so saddens cowardly quivering, employer butchering genuinely fine Americans made victims and my by way pay by politicians check of deductions bloodsucking suckers bu- surrendering money governmental vul- The freedom from reaucrats. tyranny I submit tures. all income tax forms in that I can all know be had Amer- *8 is, they blank. That I send no information and if will but shake loose the chains icans absolutely money. sleeping The Federal Ex- and exert themselves. When the 10% telephone easy. merely (millions giant taxslaves) cise Tax on the is I awakes and arises, deduct that tax from the bill and a write no force the face of this earth can explanation company. note of to the The withstand. Utility City “Sincerely, Tax is handled the same man- paying enjoyable ner. Not taxes the most “/s/ Jim Scott satisfying experience and I have ever “Jim Scott” get known. When I earn a I dollar a dollar. Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 52. reason, buy everything Within I I want and majority correctly ap- The holds that denied, 1974), cert. rights that contention his under pellant’s 42 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. U.S. infringed Fourth Amendment were that there was (1974). We conclude light rejected in of Hoffa v. must be by hearing a nothing gained such to be 293, 300-03, judge did not abuse his that the trial and The request. by denying Scott’s discretion however, errs, majority dismissing ap- alleged many raises other Appellant Fifth and pellant’s Sixth Amendment careful review of the errors, after a but claims. they lack that merit. we find record judgment is affirmed. The I. majority recognizes that the Fifth BROWNING, Judge (dissent- Circuit Amendment be violated intro- ing): ducing agent into the de- charge of dis- agree appellant’s I that camp. states, fense the majority As criminatory prosecution reject- must be “government private intrusion into the ap- ed, dissent from the dismissal of but pro defendant, se councils strug- that, surreptitious claim pellant’s oppose gling that during government agent of a into intrusion purpose for the or with the result camp, process due denied gaining trial advantages right to exercise of his the effective one’s play sense of fair offend[s] himself. represent the proper subvert[s] administration of was a undisputed that Swanson It is justice . . . . may well consti- [and] agent govern- process.” undercover tute a denial of due
paid Yet the prote- rejects a member of a tax posing majority Fifth organization. claim, It is admitted holding Amendment stors that he was appellant’s trial in that ca- attended even entitled to a hearing inquire knowledge approval with the into nature of the pacity intrusion or its in Fresno associated consequences. the IRS It is furthermore appellant’s case. with majority appellant concludes that during partici- the trial he conceded did not make a showing sufficient meetings among in discussions pated did in Swanson fact intrude into the including appellant, protestors, tax appellant’s defense, councils of with the and, at the close courtroom both purpose or result Thus, indicated. day, motel where each of the trial majority states reading that from stayed. The exact nature of group it is affidavits convinced that the trial disputed. Affidavits participation simply unimpressed court “was and un- assert by appellant submitted persuaded reprehensible such appellant’s defense discussed Swanson activity engaged in.” The majority advisors, ad- lay and his appellant holds affidavits were de- strategy, regarding vised they ficient because were “ambiguous urged him to take the stand. Swan- and son, conjectural,” “directly were contro- affidavit, that he attend- admits verted” affidavits filed by the meetings regarding conferences ed government, and related to matters that that he offered no trial but asserts little if anything “have to do with the advice. basic issues of the law suit.” by appellant Affidavits submitted also affidavits by appellant filed can- assert that Swanson was said leaving “ambiguous seen not be to be conjec- appellant’s room when no one respect else was tural” with charge to the present and that certain papers Agent Swanson intruded into the coun- subsequently missing. cils of the sought Swanson defense and to influ- breaking entering denies into and ence defense appel- strategy. Appellant’s own room or removing papers. lant’s affidavit states that “the confidentiality *9 jurors. of more His decision to myself of my and counsel- take privacy the stand well have Agent had by” admittedly invaded critical was lors upon effect the realization of this hope. of Kel- affidavit Claire Swanson. impossible It is beyond to know appellant’s supporters, states reason- one ley, able doubt that it did not. The talking heard to reaction “I saw [Swanson] jurors appellant to as an at the counsel table numerous accused [appellant] engaged in presenting throughout own discussing defense times may have quite been different advising [appel- defense and from [appellant’s] their reaction appellant to witness, as a . . . strategy. [Swanson] lant] was particularly prosecutor’s under the out effec- persistent pushy seeking tive Moreover, cross-examination.2 talking [appellant], to I heard this ought speculate court not to as urge [appellant] to to take [Swanson] witness stand prejudice that might have resulted defense.” The from his own a clandestine continues, agent’s Kelley “I was in suc- affidavit effort cessful to Motel, influence the Key of the Golden accused Room a matter so fundamental to the by was used the defense for dis- which as the decision to waive his privilege cussing planning strategy when against self-incrimination, take was also and took [Swanson] stand, subject himself to cross-exam- privy discussion and was to part ination. concerning the information confidential Although defense.” not direct It is irrelevant that the affidavits sub categorical, the of William R. affidavit by appellant mitted were by contradicted Dobslaw, Swanson’s roommate at affidavits government. filed Key, corroborates the Golden affidavits The function of the affidavits was to appellant and Kelley.1 determine whether relevant factual is existed, majority sues not Kelley to resolve such concedes issues. Machibroda v. United sufficiently specific affidavit raised the 487, 493-95, charge appellant that Swanson advised (1962); Wright Dickson, charge to take the stand. dis- This 336 F.2d (9th 1964). 882-83 posed asserting that See also United Guthrie, prejudiced appearance as a not States it witness. But cannot said with as- 8A Moore’s Federal Practice 33.03[3], that this appellant’s surance violation of at 33-18. The affidavits filed If by appellants Amendment rights was prima Fifth harmless made out a facie case that beyond Appellant’s a reasonable doubt. agent had ac hope spirit participated pro- tively ap ultimate councils of pellant’s might test that motivated his defense and sought actions had to in receptive response strategy. elicit a fluence defense one or Since such 1. Dobslaw’s affidavit states way get your story across,’ that Swanson ‘That’sthe feet: or ‘That’s the he had been in way “told me get your ‘Conference side ” (Room Key Motel), Room’ planning 214 of the Golden across.’ strategy Vaughn the trial with Ells- Drexler, The affidavit of William E. another worth, Kelley, Scott, Claire Jim and Bill Drex- associates, spe- of cific close makes the continues, “During ler.” The affidavit recess- allegation appel- that Swanson inwas Swan) (alias es in the trial Swanson was often present. room when no one lant’s Both Drexler and else was up table, front around the defendant’s counsel appellant imply that Swan- talking [appellant] and his counselors. papers certain son took when he was Exactly he what said on all of these occasions room, although neither claims to have I do not know.” Dobslaw’s affidavit also specific more evidence so. did during states that a recess Swanson “was talk- ing Kelley. [appellant] and Claire I did quoted 2. The two letters in footnote 7 of the everything said, catch but I think it had majority opinion pros- introduced [appellant’s] do with decision whether or not during appellant. ecution cross-examination of to take the witness stand. was en- [Swanson] majority prejudicial considers them to be couraging [appellant] to take the stand. cause; jury may have also. [appellant] something Swanson told to the ef-
1198
States,
26,
v. United
385
Amend- Black
87
the Fifth
violate
would
conduct
ment,
190,
(1966);
17
26
vigorously
L.Ed.2d
Caldwell
majority itself
as the
States,
355,
U.S.App.D.C.
92
hearing was re- v. United
asserts,
evidentiary
an
(1953);
Coplon
879
Appel-
F.2d
v.
the
205
Unit-
facts.
to determine
quired
States,
U.S.App.D.C. 103,
89
hearing
a
ed
191 F.2d
requested
specifically
such
lant
(1951), in which new
to
trials were or-
argument
749
in
in
motion3
both
government
the
had in-
dered because
It
district court.
was denied.
the
into the confidential relationship
truded
noth-
say
to
that
appears
majority
The
the
and his
accused
counsel
between
an
for
gained
remand
is to be
ing
through
surveillance
or
electronic
due
hearing
appellant’s
evidentiary
agents.
majority
The
re-
appellant
generally because
claim
process
upon
jects appellant’s reliance
these and
the
of
on the merits
no valid defense
has
primarily
authorities
on the
similar
him, and because
against
charge
criminal
they
upon
are based
ground
inter-
in-
claimed
government’s
from the
(aside
right
with the
Amendment
ference
Sixth
camp) appellant
of the
vasion
counsel,
of
effective assistance
to
the
trial
a fair
full
afforded
in
waived
right.
this case
court.
trial
disposition neglects
This facile
the fact
one
think of
Whatever
criminal
the accused in a
case has a
merits,
and is
he was
on the
right
to
constitutional
defend himself
comports
with due
to a trial
entitled
equal
dignity
is
to his constitu-
meticulous fairness of
The
process.
right to
“Implicit
tional
counsel.
in both
record,
evident from the
judge is
trial
Fifth and
amendments
Sixth]
[the
states,
forcefully
majority
so
but
personally
accused
right
to man-
prosecution
intrusions
deliberate
upon
and conduct his own
age
defense in a
coun
private
pro
a
se defendant’s
case.”
criminal
United States
Platt-
play and
sense of fair
“offend one’s
cils
271,
(2d
ner,
1964).
330 F.2d
274
Cir.
jus
administration of
proper
subvert
right to
right
counsel and the
“The
to
Justice
paraphrase Mr. Chief
To
tice.”
se
pro
in criminal
defend
cases form a
concurring
May
opinion in
Burger in his
inseparable
single,
rights,
bundle
two
455, 467—
Pennsylvania, 400 U.S.
berry v.
Id.
same coin.”
at 276. “A
faces
499,
(1971), a
68,
91 S.Ct.
defendant
a criminal
has
matter;
not a private
trial
criminal
right
to
a constitutional
assistance
than the interests of
is at stake
more
counsel, he has a correlative constitution-
in the in
public
interest
accused.
right to
the advice
interfer-
al
refuse
process,
judicial
of the
tegrity
ence of counsel and to
his own
sub
justice, as well as its
appearance
stance,
States,
Arnold v. United
414 F.2d
case.”
imposed
require
sanctions
(9th
1969), quoted
1058
Cir.
corrupt
for such
upon
Price,
States v.
474 F.2d
United
v. Ros
ing conduct. See United States
1973).
Cir.
ner,
(2d
F.2d
into
vice of
intrusions
965, 977
Rispo,
States v.
United
relationship
the accused and
between
1972).
(3d
simply corollary
lawyer
a
is not
lawyer-
general principle
II
one,
a
relationship is
confidential
client
majority opin-
suggests.
intru-
majority
of the
Such
greater part
as the
upon
they
because
consti-
reliance
are
ion deals
sions
condemned
infringement upon
unwarranted
tute
O’Brien
(1967);
right
Amendment
1158, L.Ed.2d
accused’s Sixth
87 S.Ct.
agents,
Appellant’s request
hearing
undercover
JAMES
for a
at which
Q.
SWANSON
SWAN],
JEFF
[aka
witnesses
Swanson and other
ROGER D.
could examine
SMITH AND
JOHN DOE
an unknown
form of a
“that
motion to the court
undercover
prays
grant
and he
grant
depo-
court for leave
it
new
if
refuses
take
IRS,
bring
stay
subpoena
sitions.”
issue
to the
*11
however,
government
the
could not seize
of counsel.
In
assistance
effective
opportunity
presented
it
to
way, government
interfere
same
intru-
much
appellant’s
with
right
exercise of his
to
of an accused act-
the councils
into
sions
ing pro
by
defend himself
interposing
unjustifiable
govern-
se are
interfer-
an
agent into
ment
the relationship.
by
the unfettered exercise
with
ence
right
of
to
his constitutional
con-
accused
hand,
On the other
the right of the
own defense.4
his
duct
be
accused to
government
free of
inter-
supporters
appellant’s
of
Three
—Claire
presentation
ference in the
of his de-
Ellsworth,
Vaughn
William
Kelley,
fense does not depend upon the use of
particularly active
played a
Drexler—
lay advisors. The accused’s exercise of
appellant’s defense.
presenting
in
role
right
his
to defend himself does not
permitted to sit at the coun-
They were
grant
a license
spy,
to
Appellant consult-
during trial.
sel table
whether the accused acts alone or has
during the tak-
frequently
them
ed with
the help of others.
They participated
testimony.
ing of
They
majority
ar-
hearings on various motions.
asserts that the cases re
points
upon
lied
appellant’s
by appellant
constitutional
do not
gued
apply a per
with the
se rule
jury
requiring
instructions
discussed
remand whenever the
appel- government
conferred with
They
has
court.
had
access to a commu
courtroom, planning
nication between an
outside
lant
accused and his
counsel;
assembling cases
docu-
and the
strategy,
majority
concludes that
ments,
marshaling
remand would
arguments
for la-
not
appropriate
be
in this
short, they per-
In
case
in court.
because there was
prejudice.
use
ter
majority
to The
typically reserved
functions
cannot
formed
mean
surrepti
impairment
tious
of the bar.
invasion
members
of the coun
cils of the
and free exercise
defense requires
full
reversal
if the
right
defendant
to conduct his own
can
specific
constitutional
establish
prejudice.
resulting
the intrusion
The Supreme
from
of a
Court’s deci
into the
sions in
conferences
O’Brien v.
States,
supra,
345,
386
appellant
lay
1158,
these
advisors
U.S.
87
S.Ct.
between
and Black v.
distinguished
the inter- United
supra,
26,
385
cannot
U.S.
87
190,
clearly
Amend- S. Ct.
Sixth
ference
hold
the contrary,
right
have been
and bind this
that would
court.
been lawyers.
advisors
these
had
suggested
What is
by the
cited
cases
by the
appellant
majority,
cases,
had a
say
not to
This is
similar
right
required
to the assistance
reversal
not
if
constitutional
there was
in fact
his,defense in
no intrusion
presenting
into the
his friends
councils of
by
all,6
court.5 the
permitted
the trial
manner
or no knowing
intrus
ion,7 or the intrusion was
assistance,
minimal and
Having been allowed
right
“attorneys”
4. The
personal
constitutional
agents,
first
accused to
were
lacking
recognized
any professional
conduct
own defense was
often
training, who
Supreme
appointed by
litigants
Court
Faretta
were
v.
those
who had
California,
806,
2525,
royal permission
secured
carry
95 S.Ct.
45
on their
(1975),
opinions
through
562
representative,
L.Ed.2d
decided after
affairs
rather
than
Id.,
personally.
this
were filed.
at 212-213.
California,
n.16,
5.
Faretta
Cf.
v.
806,
95
422
At 820
S.Ct. at
95
2525,
(1975),
L.Ed.2d 562
in which the
Court
intimates
Rosner,
Sixth
6. United States v.
Amendment
485 F.2d
right
Counsel”,
1973);
(2d
Alderisio,
“Assistance of
Cir.
United States v.
encom-
pass
lay
(10th
1970).
the assistance of
Cir.
advisors.
See
As
also Manuel
pointed
Court
Salisbury,
(6th
1971).
out:
Helen L.
The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
EDGEFIELD COUNTY SCHOOL al., Plaintiffs,
DISTRICT et Ashley al.,
C. Abel Appellants. et BURT, Appellant,
Helen L.
The BOARD OF OF TRUSTEES
EDGEFIELD COUNTY SCHOOL al., Plaintiffs,
DISTRICT et Ashley al., Appellees.
C. Abel et 73-2363,
Nos. 73-2364. Appeals, States Court of
Fourth Circuit.
Argued March 1975. Aug.
Decided