*1 UNITED STATES of America PARMAN, Appellant.
Walter Lee
No. 24526. Appeals,
United States Court of
District of Columbia Circuit.
Sept. 29, 1971. a brief
Mr. Lee Parman filed pro se. Flannery, U. S.
Messrs. Thomas A. Atty., Terry, Kotel- and John John T. A. Brewer, ly, U. S. Madison Asst. and C. appellee. Attys., the brief were *2 Judge, FAHY, surrounding Before Senior newspaper publicity Circuit adverse LEYENTHAL, and TAMM and Judges. Circuit his case. We have examined the point, including on this the exhibits at- appellant’s examples
tached to
motion as
what
calls a
“voluminous file
PER CURIAM:
newspaper
mag-
clippings and detective
April 12, 1965, appellant
in-
was
On
stores,”
find
azine
and
abuse
relating
the
dicted on
gruesome
counts
to
four
in
discretion
the trial
denial of
court’s
Shirley Ann
murder Miss
hearing
point.
clippings
on this
The
Appellant
Cary Washington, D.
in
C.1
themselves
de-
are
accounts of
accurate
following
jury,
dis-
tried
and
was
to a
velopments during
not
trial
and are
three,
con-
and
was
missal
counts two
cry
They
sensational in tone.
a
far
degree, with
in
victed of murder
the first
charges
from
and
for re-
baseless
cries
imprisonment,
a
recommendation
venge
so
that the
Court found
weap-
dangerous
as well as
assault with
Moreover,
inflammatory
Sheppard.
10, 1967, appellant
September
on. On
scrupulous
the record reveals a
concern
of life
was sentenced to concurrent terms
on the
trial court
for
imprisonment
count and
on the murder
extrajudicial
elimination
influences
years
In a
for the assault.
three
subsequent
ten
to
jury’s
from
A case
deliberations.
sev-
appeal
asserted
point
testimony
police
informer
grounds
reversal,
eral
for
Barnes,
reported
Robert E.
which was
noting
evidence
scientific
that
“the
although
newspapers
taken
the local
very
against Appellant was
amassed
jury’s presence.
to
out of the
In order
strongest
strong,
possible, out-
if
not
jury
learn
make sure that
would not
eyewitness testimony,
needed
side of
testimony,
court
contents of this
beyond
that
prove
a reasonable doubt
jury
refrain from read-
ordered
reject-
crime,”
Appellant
committed
regardless
ing any
reports,
of sub-
news
arguments
con-
ed
affirmed
ject-matter,
three
the next
or
two
viction.2
(Tr. 759).
days.
was
This instruction
January 22,
given
filed,
instruc-
addition
usual
regarding
reports
petition
pursuant
trial
for relief
tion
news
of the
1970, the
appellant’s
On June
itself. We
no basis
28 U.S.C. 2255.
find
§
prejudice
public-
appellant’s motion claim of
to outside
District Court denied
due
hearing.
ity.4
follow-
This
appellant’s
ed.
have considered all
ap-
another matter
substance
contentions. We affirm.
pellant
that
the court erred
claims
appellant’s
Only
tape
conten
jury
permitting
a few
hear a
Invoking the
given
discussion.
influence
tions warrant
under
confession
Sheppard Maxw
pentothal.
mis-
case of
To
well-known
avoid
of sodium
he, like
ell,3 appellant
understanding,
that
clear
contends
make
should
any possibility
Sheppard,
pentothal
denied
was
Dr.
interview
the sodium
of the extensive
trial
for the truth
of fair
because
introduced
not
pre-
charged
deliberate
1.
one
L.Ed.2d
Count
3.
U.S.
16
felony
murder;
two,
(1966).
count
meditated
rape;
attempting to
while
commit
murder
4.
is not affected
the fact
Our conclusion
three,
com-
with intent
assault
count
participated
jurors
two of the
who
rape;
four,
with a
mit
count
assault
they
on voir dire that
the verdict stated
teeth).
deadly
(biting
weapon
something
read or
about
had
heard
States,
U.S.App.
jurors
previously.
were sub-
Parman v. United
These
case
denied,
questioning,
jected
and as-
F.2d
cert.
D.C.
extensive
they
render
could
L.Ed.2d
sured
impartial
law
verdict
fair and
and evidence.
statements made.5
dentiary standing
clear,
only
did not
evi-
It
makes
put
defense
prosecution
as an admission or
proof,
and its
by ap-
guilt
confession. It
proving
beyond
rather
offered
burden of
a rea-
pellant’s
jury
counsel as
doubt,
vigorously interposed
an aid to the
sonable
evaluating
testimony
legal objections
of defense
substantial
sibility
the admis-
psychiatrist
on the
of defendant’s
issue
of evidence
without a
obtained
responsibility.
tapes
mental
Before the
*3
warrant.
played
jury
were
the court instructed the
insanity defense, appellant
As to the
they
tapes
that
were not
to consider
necessarily
position
not
was
best
appellant’s guilt,
only
as
of
evidence
but
judge
sanity
his own
under the stand-
deciding
insanity
as a means of
is-
pertinent in the
even as-
ards
suming,
And
law.
Furthermore,
admitting the
sue.
before
discussion,
for sake of
the ac-
tapes
evidence,
into
as-
received
allegation
curacy of the
ad-
that counsel
appellant’s
surances from
counsel that
only
appellant that
vised
this was the
appellant
taped
had
in-
consented to the
defense,
realistic
overwhelming
of
in view of
line
terview.
of
circumstantial evidence
guilt,
appellant’s
petition
offers
tapes
The decision to admit
of
meaningful possibility that this conclu-
voluntary
pentothal
a
sodium
interview
grounds of
could
on
sion
be undercut
evidentiary
insanity
on
issue
of
is an
of
ineffectiveness
error,
ruling that was not even reversible
invoking
much less a reason for
Section
is
Appellant’s
relief
claim
2255.
that
What
now claims is
inability
by
point
some
vitiated
his
coerced into
in vio
this interview
ground
exculpation in
of
other
rights.
lation of his
Amendment
Fifth
against him.
the face of
evidence
coercion, appellant
his claim of
cites
Appellant stresses that he had wanted
certain
mo
exhibits attached to his 2255
bring
had been
out at trial that
there
tion,
may have
which
that he
indicate
nearby
rape-strangling in
another
a
concerning
faked the
lied
interview and
Cary’s
days
a
before Miss
church
death,
few
He con
involvement
murder.
plainly have been
this would
inter
tends that he was forced into the
charges
appellant’s
As to
inadmissible.
coun
view virtue of
fact that his
investigation
de
proper
of a lack of
refused to
had
sel
believe that
hearing
indicat
is
while
fense
murder,
not committed
insisted
upon
grounded
a 2255
ed when
is
insanity
except
that no other
be
defense
attorney miscon
plausible
claim
presented
at trial.
claims
also
wrongful
duct,
inducement
such as
attorney’s
deprived him
that his
actions
Simp
guilty plea,
v.
see United States
of effective
counsel because
assistance
162
U.S.App.D.C.
436 F.2d
son,
8,
engage
inadequate exploration
his defenses
vague
(1970),
cannot
a court
on the merits.
“investi
speculations
the kind
about
arguments patently
find these
might
made
gation”
counsel
defense
hearing.
unworthy
frivolous
es
prodigious efforts
in addition
States,
v.
Machibroda United
487,
Appellant’s
by the record.
tablished
(1962).
510, 7
L.Ed.2d 473
profession
within
acted well
show,
allegations
Appellant’s
not
own
that
responsibility when he concluded
al
coercion,
to the
he submitted
ap
representation
the most effective
voluntarily.
And the
interview
focusing
in
effective
lay
an
pellant
on
refutes
assist-
and files
ineffective
held
be
sanity
cannot
Counsel
defense.
contention.
ance
decided to
defendant
because
ineffective
interpret
guidance
induce
insanity
as
place,
not
counsel’s
In the first
pen-
during
sodium
opinion
only
prior
simulate
defense. As our
ment to
States,
Lindsey
Compare Frye
States,
Alaska
v. United
United
U.S.App.D.C.
(1923);
F.2d
F.
sum,
Court,
analysis
not
tothal
In
there
interview.
both
our
on
own
and in
fact,
allegation
slightest
light
appellant’s
basis
briefs.
conclusion, for
as contrasted with bald
gone
great
While the court has
inadequate
appellant’s
repre-
claim
lengths
hearing
to ensure a
Dis
Neither
nor
or
sentation
coercion.
these
trict Court where the
raises
defendant
appellant’s
other of
claims warrant
legitimate
relating
issues of fact
fair
hearing in the District
further
Court.
trial,
Simpson, supra,
United States
Finally,
there is
matter
consideration
careful
conclude
appointment
mo
for the 2255
of counsel
Parman’s contentions in the District
itself,
appeal. Appellant
tion
require
Court were
not sufficient
repre
complains
to us that he was
hearing.
appellant’s pro
mo
While
filing
mo
sented
his 2255
pending
tion for
counsel was
before
shows, however, tion. The record
challeng
34-page
he filed a
brief
3, 1970,
February
the District Court
ing
motion, plus a
his 2255
*4
appointing
Car
issued an order
Russell
appellant
16-page reply to the
brief.
Government’s
penter, Esq.
on
as counsel
we
While
consider his contentions to be
5, 1970, appellant
April
this motion. On
merits,
insubstantial on the
his briefs
expressing
Carpenter,
sur
wrote to Mr.
vigor
written,
points
well
are
with his
ordering
prise
appointment, and
at his
ously made and reflect wide research.
your name from the
him to “remove
analysis
our
We
undertaken
own
my
as
as soon
court
as
counsel
records
us.
of the
and contentions before
” Appellant
humanly possible!
contin
problem
apprised
We are
involved
ued,
your
to
to
the
“In
appointment
and do
of coun
not consider
say
withdraw, you
authorized to
sel warranted in the
We
circumstances.
I,
Parman,
defend and coun
will
do
has
a defendant
an abso
believe
person
my complaints in
without
duct
right
appeal.
lute
in a 2255
to counsel
days
the
counsel.” Two
of
assistance
right,
is
such a
It
to create
later,
order
issued an
District Court
the
ap
if a
such an
court is
to decide
ever
vacating
Carpenter’s appointment
Mr.
counsel,
ap
peal
appointed
it is
McArdle, Esq. as
appointing
and
Paul
case,
propriate
do so in the instant
to
April 9,
place.
in his
counsel
intelligent,
party
the
where
is
and
the
permission to with
asked
Mr. McArdle
appeal
points
are confined
on
available
ap
of
on the basis
draw
case
from the
by
own,
on his
re
record made
the
he
proceed
pellant’s
intention
clear
jecting
appointed in
counsel
various
the
vacating
appointment
his
se. The order
Taking
ac
this into
District Court.
Appellant
April
is
on
issued
overwhelming
along
count
evi
with the
complain
of
lack
position
now
against
brought
guilt
him
representation in the District Court.
dence of
out
trial,
in
that no
at
confident
we feel
We are satisfied
affirming
judg
justice is
done
presentation
his
not hindered in
ment of
District Court.
through
rep-
appeal
lack
claims on
by
He
confined
counsel.
is
resentation
Affirmed.
record made act-
appeal
to the
he
ing
District
counsel
as his own
Judge (dissent-
FAHY,
Circuit
Senior
Perhaps
an unwise
Court.
that was
ing specially):
say
part
his
cannot
decision on
defining
Though
rejected
precludes
appoint-
him from
the law
Court,
presenting
points
raised on col-
to be
District
ment of
in the
IQ
has an
lateral attack.
attached
and no error should be
1794).
(Tr.
have consid-
over
has
he
in that
absence
District
points
appointment
ered
raised
requested
in this court
holding
is
of counsel to assist him.1 I think he
Illinois,
of Griffin v.
(1956),
entitled to
decision
counsel and
our
76 S.Ct.
L.Ed.
accordingly
by
indigents
right
guaranteeing
should await the assistance
ato
might give
transcript
him
which counsel
free
Long
corpus
the court. He is under sentence of
habeas
relief.
District
degree
imprisonment
Iowa,
murder.
for first
Court
362,
385 U.S.
87 S.Ct.
upon
In
the instant collateral attack
17 L.Ed.2d
rea-
The
soning
Long
numer-
conviction and sentence
raises
Court
points.
reviewed, involving post-
ous
decisions there
procedures subsequent
conviction
di-
The Sixth
Amendment to
Consti
appeal,
apply
rect
would seem to
as well
provides
tution
that “In
criminal
all
right
to the
at
in the
least
prosecutions,
enjoy the
the accused shall
case,
circumstances of
if not
right
...
Assistance
have the
Clause,
Equal
reason
Protection
provi
Counsel
defence.” This
under
then
Due Process Clause read
generous
given
scope
sion has been
right
Sixth Amendment
interpretation
Court
assistance
prosecutions.”
“criminal
Cole
See
question aside,
The constitutional
how-
Alabama,
man
399 U.S.
ever,
if appellant in a
even
sense
strict
(1970) (prelimin