Zedekiah Suggs v. United States

SUGGS, Appellant, Zedekiah America,

UNITED STATES Appellee.

No. 20463. Appeals States Court District Columbia Circuit.

Jan. May

Messrs. Robert E. and Kirk W. Weinert, Washington, C.,D. on the were motion.

972 Atty., ceeding, Bress, Appel U. S.

Messrs. David G. held conferences with Q. Seymour Glanzer, lant, law, applicable Frank Nebeker and researched made concerning Gill, Sp. Attys., investigations independent Asst. U. and John G. S. appearances allegations by Atty., Appellant Asst. U. S. entered certain appellee. Appellant’s for and with court- conferred trial. Counsel counsel Edgerton, Circuit Before Senior non- concluded that there is no have Leventhal, Judge, and Danaher which counsel frivolous Judges. Circuit However, present Court. this Judge: LEVENTHAL, Circuit possibility exists a criti distinct cal issue issues have been over opinion hold that Anders this Therefore, 738, com an effort looked. 87 v. 386 State ply States, (1967) pre- 124 with Johnson v. United 1396, 493 S.Ct. 18 L.Ed.2d (1966), U.S.App.D.C. pos- 29, 360 F.2d 844 our in the cludes affirmance Judge concurring opinion by and the The brief filed ture this case. Burger McCoy therein, appointed by repre- court to counsel this U.S.App.D.C. F. 370 against appellant sent was fact a brief (1966), appellant, given 2d 224 counsel submit this Govern- was feeling Appellant, for brief ment. also We consider bring applicable procedure withdraw, subsequently by filed counsel ground they facts and of this case to atten law on find no non-friv- tion of the Court. question, in the olous and conclude that case, and in view of this circumstances questions to on Counsel raise have of Anders and the the combination Appellant, Appellant. behalf of how- by approved instructions ever, following ques- specified has Council, Judicial the motion to : tions granted should be and substitute counsel 1. “Was counsel ineffective appointed. should be failing subpoena defend- ant’s witness?” I eight questions, appeal set rob- There are each from convictions of The weap- marks, copied dangerous quotation bery forth in and assault with a specification which errors on. The statement pro ap- accompany court, lant filed se the Gov- concurred plication ernment, appellant was forth that leave sets forma pauperis. taking property of the convicted of appellant of a taxi in driver summarizes, In the Statement the brief along handkerchief, passenger, to wit his transcript references, with the evidence hap- driver false teeth that presented prosecution and defense. keep pened to there. He was also con- eight Argument In the the brief has assaulting driver and victed of the taxi sections, captioned quotation each with a person de- knife. His another with a specification appellant’s pro of the se testimony he was consisted of fense errors, containing opening para- an intoxication in an advanced state of setting graph “Appellant” forth what offense, p. m. on time of 1:00 or contends. There then follows believes criminal October lacked law, transcript a discussion of the robbery. requisite tent a discussion whose manifest thrust is to begins fol- The brief show is no substance the conten- lows: tion. QUESTIONS OF STATEMENT be Handed Statement PRESENTED Appointed (here the Clerk Counsel), Court-appointed care- after Statement as revised counsel have January pro- fully instruction record in this reviewed the 1966; begins making John- F.2d Council, October Judicial U.S., U.S.App.D.C. un- son v. “should clear that 844, September 15, 1966. F.2d amicus curiae.” that he is derstand Parenthetically, we have stressed ex In all likelihood g., point opinions, in our e. Tate January form pression in our U.S.App.D.C. guided in this statement (1966). not to counsel We 245 advise preparation This in of their brief. case legally non- there is no conclude that re must take a full measure a care- until he makes frivolous kind of sponsibility for that the fact exploration and law. of both facts ful although that filed, we note was brief following Clark, McCoy approved In Anders Justice in that was the brief States, emphasizes court, by McCoy that sentence that see v. United U.S.App.D.C. 202, rath- 224 advocate F.2d should be active 370 curiae, argued appends (1966), com- er amicus than was one which practice, McCoy’s barring overruling District of ment on Columbia of decisions 1396, 738, 3, n. 87 S.Ct. On we con 386 U.S. further reflection reversal.1 passage quoted 1400: that the clude State Counsel, effort ment for in an inserted comparative purposes Tate For see counsel, maximize the did assistance 261, U.S.App.D.C. veer toward the shoals of an amicus curi 245, and 359 F.2d Johnson v. any event, position. in In with the ae U.S.App.D.C. provided by mani struction it is Anders practice followed which outline the by fest a brief like filed that that These District Columbia. constitutionally ade this case not guidelines de- in more are elaborated though purports quate, even the court by Handed tail a “Statement to be independently. Coun review the Appointed the Clerk to Counsel” may against not “brief his sel his case Ap- prepared by has been Court client.” peals for District We of Columbia. approval require- indicate II

ments set out the statement the cases. We turn to the motion plain To counsel for leave to a sensitive it is withdraw. reader Supreme Court disturbed was permission Anders makes clear aspect though procedure, some of our may by appointed requested be precise aspect specifically iden- not wholly counsel who “finds his be case may tified. It be Court frivolous, after a conscientious-examina- following passage troubled con- re- tion.” Court continued: “That tained at that time in our Statement quest must, however, accompanied be Counsel: referring anything a brief in the rec- general rule, might ap- arguably support As a the court will be ord that greatly peal.” if aided counsel re- re- Justice Clark adds: “This case, though quirement mains even would not force subjectively against unimpressed with the counsel to brief his cli- case ap- points. merely merits of the ent but afford the latter propriate advocacy nonindigent cases he fulfill his func- de- which a by stating facts, tion contentions fendant is able to obtain. It would also authorities, appear- pursue and relevant induce the court all more ing argument solely vigorously at oral to answer own its review because any. questions ready only record, if the See Court has references not McCoy S., U.S.App.D.C. legal v. U. but also to the authorities as fur- Leventhal, Expects Lawyer, (1967). See What the Court the Federal Fed.B.J., only 744- would have 386 U.S. at ent result ensued nished counsel.” own law- to retain his the resources 87 S.Ct. being accept yer, required instead pursue If were free to Much de- court. selected withdraw, time to set we would have suspicion system pends avoids points.2 himself to make compromise, for reasons of such Unfortunately by appel- filed the brief that where there is clude awareness at- counsel —which well be lant’s prospects suspicion of re- such basis for Counsel, to our Statement tributable must not Justice habilitation stifled. already noted —does meet the not done, appear done. must to be fairly quirements It Anders. cannot States, 348 U.S. Offutt v. United “brief be described other than as a Appoint- 11, 99 L.Ed. 11 against surprising client.” It required is of course ed appellee’s “counsel brief stated that asserting points by accept a views client’s for that the Government have concluded reject good even at conscience any they do take with of the issue same fee. At the a handsome the loss of arguments appellant’s in brief.” against file a brief time counsel cannot provide Our did Statement thing prisoner for a It one his client. is attorney that an who concluded that there appointed no counsel sees be to told that issue to could move non-frivolous way him, quite help another to withdraw, assuming support- “a he filed sandbagged counsel when him to feel ing analyzing le- memorandum the case by arm of Government one gally, citing record references helping to seal seems be another to transcript if one is and also available cit- not re- doom. courts course are ing any case or counsel cases indigent’s quired wishes to honor all the arriving relied at his ultimate con- But must do to the courts as counsel.4 provided clusion.” thusWe for an ami- reasonably done leave what to can expressly cus memorandum, but instruct- impression digent prisoners that with the ed counsel that this should fairly. they with have been dealt only to the court.3 To misunderstand avoid ap Here, however, the brief of ing, diffi expressly note that to we wish pointed transmitted counsel was January culties our Statement Government, adopted by indeed have been furnished counsel gloss cannot this over Government. We of that State revision obviated technicality. as a The efforts mere approved Council ment the Judicial preserve an the courts in this field are to forth in 1967 —set this Circuit in June adversary indigents. system representing obliged to Appendix. But are we what extent importance consider and to in whether is of It adequate prior procedure An justice judgment is the final terest that against already indigent we determine ders. indicated As not be com should adequate.5 promised possibility it was not that that a differ- giv- requirement, complied has ing with communications one compliance. the date of he has no the court he out that granted, permission transcript, is If to withdraw which would be needed (except part. cir- any presentation unusual the court cumstances) on his counsel, appoint but other submitted with the The memorandum petitioner appellant that will advise lodged shall be with the Clerk motion a proceed pro employ se. he counsel or office, separate file in the Clerk’s unless appel- shall be available U.S.App. States, 121 4. McGill v. United otherwise directed. Counsel 182-183, 794-795 348 F.2d D.C. petitioner copy of shall mail a lant or copy and a of the memorandum procedure certify present a motion petitioner, and shall Under that copy lodged to a statement is limited that he on the with Clerk ment, and criticism of III we intended no ap- the determination that the “brief” of these circumstances Under pointed adequately furthered justice re interest conclude that objective. arbi- Our role as a court quires we allow ter of interests of Government withdraw, appoint substitute successfully accused. We cannot and con- proceed have not We with the stitutionally perform that function un- inquiry there as to whether initiated an presentation less we consider a devoted case,6 points in this non-frivolous arguments accused, leaving for the deeming substitute be the to us to determine whether to what If in the first instance. they extent have merit. is our That un- similarly find cannot convinced that he derstanding, least, philosophy frivolous, point is not seek underlying Anders. with leave to withdraw accordance Anders. noting It be worth if the also sought summary dis- Government IV position by affirmance, motion for supple- In Part IV we set forth some showing would have had the burden mentary respectfully sub- remarks. We nothing this case that mit failed to come the dissent has conceivably present a non-frivolous grips out- Anders, which states question. Now that burden has been right quotations make above —as lawyer shouldered forbids us clear —that the Constitution represent appellant. this court to is It judgment present to affirm the in the perhaps suppose not unreasonable to posture case. of the Our doubts as the to approved prece- this course were as a permissibility entering of our an order indigent dent it would so embitter the de- dismissing appeal at for this time the any pos- fendants involved as to undercut question lack of a un- non-frivolous are objective sible rehabilitative of detention. by Oregon, derscored the order in Fox v. dissenting colleague S.Ct. L.Ed. 1324 Our indicates that whereby Oregon (1967), judgment inquiry the in he has an initiated into whether Fox, (Ore.Sup.Ct.1966)7 any 421 P.2d 977 points in are non-frivolous was and inquiry vacated remanded further the case —an that An- we think light consideration the of Anders. ders has withdrawn from the courts at stage he concludes there are —and said, why It is should not the points. no non-frivolous “adopt” by Government the “brief” filed appointed making counsel? The United States Without a determination Attorney prosecutorial juncture the following arm of Gov whether the ernment, concentrating points non-frivolous, on law enforce- are or are not counsel has made a careful examination had not been considered of the facts and law and desires to with- counsel. The Government announced draw, identifying the issues which readiness to file a the memorandum on appellant any point, to seeks other but of course there was no ad- versary posture. considered The counsel. con- simultaneously lodged fidential brief 7. Fox’s trial was appellant sent therewith is but not the resigned upon handle this Government, copy and the Clerk makes a showing could find no merit transcript appellant, of the appeal. The court then given days, who is then or such ad- Deputy Defender, Public in turn who may requisite, pre- ditional time as was to withdraw his show- allowed sent his comments on the motion and ing that he find meritorious brief. Our files contain some instances grounds The defendant then acquiesced where the defendant has pro Oregon se. filed a brief Su- position taken his counsel. preme held Court there was no merit argument question 6. At which a member of the defendant’s contentions. put exploration of the court forward for suggest judge may new wish to The trial have b. been brought anyhow, by following points, problem, consider into the whether who others as he ascer- action the defense counsel asked addition * * * tain, judge “arguable the trial confirm on the record least appellant therefore frivolous”.8 had warned the necessary (who take that he it believed (1) Was the evidence such as stand) consequences of this of the quire jury a reasonable a reason- have judge stated that The trial course. appellant able doubt that was so drunk thought appropriate defense coun specific necessary intent protection, con and he to seek this sel robbery negatived crime of ? In this appellant. a brief interview ducted that, connection we note dissent although judge was thus the trial But points out, the crime is asserted assuming adequacy of what in effect prosecution to have com- witnesses been appellant, he told defense knife-point although lady mitted at possibility that his did not mention sweeping away, a few sidewalk feet invoked before Luck could be discretion man, working and a who had been on his opinion of appellant An took the stand. street, car across the ran over and tried recently has noted that some this court appellant. to reason with When judge trial of the cases scene, lant left the he walked and did whether to raise himself shortly response run. His observed (Tom Luck-type ruling appropriate. approach police afterward to the mie) 127 U.S. Lewis v. officer was to a drink take from (June App.D.C. bottle. 1967). (2) result Did reversible error sought prosecution ob- c. The counsel, trial the actions either objection, tained, instruction without failing judge, both, to raise guilt inferred from could be possibility appellant’s consider the recently, possession proof impeachment prior con- reference goods, “if has failed stolen inappropriate the under victions was your explain possession satis- such to of Luck States?9 doctrine v. United of faction.” the effect this Since permitted virtually de- Appointed require a. to the struction is asking guilty fendant to take stand without stand avoid a the lant to take the to judge verdict, opinion the to consider whether of court states he an permit appel- uniquely his discretion kind of ease exercise to this is that the testimony exculpation important lant’s be discretion should exer- where Luck guilt prejudice of be without he should be to heard the cised to consider whether impeachment prior permitted of without im- conviction. Such to take the stand obviously prop- peachment prior that a motion would have been from convictions least, average may jury er Luck. to lead citizens some cases appeal impermissible the court will on be- draw the conclusion reverse direct ap- cause of of trial defendant committed other deficiencies because the parent probably even the crimes, on committed crime the face charged. though rising (Fletcher) not to the constitutional Smith v. United negating U.S.App.D.C. 259, 359 F.2d dimension of assist- effective may (1966). ance This of counsel.10 factor be supra, sibility because of the 8. v. State of of reversible error Anders problem impeachment L.Ed.2d to be distin is guished his contention from failing to was ineffective trial counsel produce U.S.App.D.C. 151, F.2d 763 his to a witness corroborate (1965). drinking, apart from the corroboration U.S.App. by appellant’s possession Dyer furnished pos whiskey the his arrest. bottle at time of F.2d 89 D.C. arguing Luck only a case effort would involved on issues be not the relevance merits, alone, possible the on the braced for on the to but also to ferred perhaps possibility af- prosecution likelihood of question whether order,11 presenting fairly course firmance than choose one be to called through If impeach withdraw. a documented or other —either concludes, however, convictions, an instruc- or to obtain new prior obligations compel pos- professional a motion from on the inference tion goods withdraw, recently motion should not be stolen session —but oppor- on An the Government. served both. tunity defendant afforded to the be (3) result reversible error Did contentions as he such guilt of giving of the instruction aof meritorious with the benefit deem pos- presumed robbery from the handicap of transcript, and without goods, recently when stolen session of the anal- disclosure to the Government identity contest does not defense appoint- ysis appraisal who took as the man of defendant ed this court. aof goods, be convicted or that vacating (taking An order will be without entered the. included offense lesser appointing appointment right), of counsel contests whether he but robbery. necessary for counsel. specific new intent convictions robbery detention. These conviction points would on the assault ^[*] resulted -X- not undercut counts, in a but longer So ordered. APPENDIX [Rev. June, 1967] began noting We end as we that we Statement Handed Appointed points have not determined that these Clerk Counsel arguable, Anders since we believe that Ap- appointed by the Court proper us tells not our func- represent peals or the District Court juncture. Certainly tion at have we indigent petitioner an not determined listed appeal allowance of in a criminal case above would be sustained after consider- should understand that he is not ap- ation the merits. It would not be indigent duty amicus curiae. His propriate engage in such determina- fully equivalent a client advocacy tions without on both sides who has retained He should him. questions. All have is to done pre- petition conclude identify may areas that new counsel wish legally no non-frivolous sents explore ascertaining to in there whether exploration until he a has made careful any arguable. points are We that are mat- of both facts and the law of the the any implication have done to this avoid ter; representation adequate in this dissenting in silence the of the face regard personal would include interviews opinion acquiesce in conclu- you if in the circumstances would same sion that it is uncontrovertible consider this useful were or desirable arguable questions. no are you representing private a Or- client. dinarily at least one interview counsel opinion Neither Anders nor this appear to be useful. that, concluding precludes counsel from should, course, diligent inquiry, of to ask after he has found appointed in question. withdraw as counsel unless It was our inten non-frivolous McCoy, following put he would insist tion in the lead the same circumstances Johnson, point if he forward in Tommie to out on withdrawal had been retained. general rule, great- any if additional As court will be little April Court, year. 24(c) Rules in this 11. See Rule of the General of added of 978 writing of in ly send to the Clerk counsel remains the court if aided any though subjective- about case, comments he wish to make he be even brief; that, ly unimpressed merits the motion and with expiration McCoy time, will points. of such the court available See brief, together States, U.S.App.D.C. the motion consider 370 notifica- (1966); with comments. This United such Johnson v. that, if the U.S.App.D.C. tion shall include the advice 360 F.2d 844 granted, appeal ordin- motion (1966). will arily be dismissed. making If, inves after a conscientious copy of Canons

tigation, hereto is a Attached concludes that then American Ethics of the petition presents Professional or no non-frivo relating Bar issues, to the Association lous he seek leave with represent defendants Anders draw. v. State They indigent read be cases. must 18 L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. availability light currently (May 1967); of the and see Ellis v. (including expense compensation imbursement) Jus- Criminal accomplish under To L.Ed.2d appreciates tice of 1964. The court purpose, Act submit should shoulder- presentation fact are of this Clerk court despite ing responsibility (without serving of the bar same on Gov counsel) showing the modest sums made available ernment a motion many Although Act. Criminal Justice made a examination of the has careful compensation may law, cases well be facts and the and that he desires customarily adequate by ap reference to that representation withdraw from provided private retentions, pellant petitioner. its availa- The should bility only emphasize the identify (1) can serve to points which imposed exacting petitioner assert; nature the standards (2) seeks to by the Canons. other matters counsel has which consid possible ered as a The basis pay- permits The Justice Criminal Act accompanied by motion shall be a brief necessarily performed ment for services purpose in which it shall counsel’s be you you recognize should make as a statement of such effective your not familiar with matters criminal points possible and issues as is under the likely you preparation require circumstances. brief shall include This study you will not devote which time references, and shall cite relevant repeat required cases. be in future appear and deal with those cases payment The in terms Act measures question. bear experienced necessary what for an practitioner devote case. to a brief submitted the motion lodged sepa- be shall with the Clerk Criminal Please note office, circuit, file in the and shall rate Clerk’s Plan for all Act Justice to the court unless three within vouchers must submitted otherwise Counsel for directed. termi- after the case has been months petitioner copy or mail a the lant shall nated. peti- and the brief to tioner, certify copy and on shall the Judge (dissent- DANAHER, Circuit lodged with the that he com- Clerk has ing) : plied giving requirement, with this the agree majority me that Since the compliance. date should brief, fur- receiving permitted from Upon now motion and the participation notify appellant peti- case, ther the Clerk shall strange But may, I dissent. seem note a tioner that he time within very proper notice, dissent, days receipt I do not from that of such “line-up Suggs, sheet out a he made result, written. what been but from has coherently Suggs during answered colleagues not seen who have Our pre- questions. search at the explanation. Further all to an here are entitled per- Suggs on his had cinct revealed I teeth, up in son, rolled false Snead’s robbery, Suggs one was convicted had These items handkerchief. Snead’s dangerous count, a and of assault with pocket. shirt Snead’s been weapon, record shows The two counts. Although Suggs had testified Suggs, passenger rear seat drinking and had no recollection been Snead, taxicab, driver, directed the of a described, jury of the events thus Suggs “Stop for- then reached here.” testimony. obviously rejected his ward, placed around Snead’s one arm eyewitnesses, actual Thus with three back, placing head, knife pulled Thomas, Snead, Lawrence and Mrs. throat, it.” “This is said at Snead’s cuttings later, officer; and Law- Thomas, sweeping her sidewalk A Mrs. hospital records, jury could rence’s episode, away, saw the a few feet had have found that the Government telling her her door and ran to screamed overwhelmingly proved Suggs was police. then ran husband to call the She guilty charged. as down toward the cab. back charge reject requests No had been working on Joseph was One Lawrence exceptions jury No instruc ed. to the opposite Attracted the cab. car noted, had court- tions been indeed Thomas, screaming ran Mrs. expressed himself trial counsel “might Suggs Fearing across the street. given.1 charge as satisfied with actually cut a mistake make ruling by thoroughly experienced No throat,” reason with he first tried to Judge trial Keech could seen to have Suggs. kept his knife The latter prejudicially been erroneous.2 And sure and “seemed to have been throat Snead’s ly, course, in usual we bound searching pocket.” Law- breast [Snead’s] notice claims of error raised for first finally chance” “took rence appeal.3 more, time on Without holding “grabbed” Suggs by the hand light normally record we cut, badly was knife. Lawrence then have affirmed I at once the view take weekly graft requiring and several a skin of this case. hospital attention. Snead visits for later chin, cut on the on one thumb II finger. Suggs got cab out of the one And so it must then have seemed street, up followed and went attorneys appointed. the able Snead at a safe distance. granted District Court had Washington petition Officer Meanwhile of an allowance responded police Suggs the offi- eight allega- alert. As had submitted some approached Suggs, took error, largely cer the latter charging tions of ineffec- Suggs drink from a bottle. small tive assistance of trial counsel.4 Counsel placed appointed by the officer Suggs arrest and us conferred with knife. from him inch respecting procedure covered a three March booking Washington testified that when McCoy we had outlined in 30. Suggs. Fay Cf. Fed.R.Ckim.P. Noia, v. 372 U.S. 83 S.Ct. 9 L.Ed.2d 837 Id., 52(b). every And not so-called constitutional en bane see the Second’s Circuit’s And error, established, require re even if Indiviglio, opinion in United States Chapman versal. v. State of denied, (1965), 276, 279, cert. 18, 22, 23, 386 U.S. 87 S.Ct. 17 L. L.Ed.2d 383 (1967). Ed.2d 705 (1966). 663 challenge Suggs post-conviction proper right 4. 5. A on a was also then advised of his open represent showing is, course, of himself if he § 2255 so desired. 980 May 202, 8, States, U.S.App.D.C. decided Anders v. of Cali- 125 370 State attorneys (1966).6 prepared fornia.8 Our read their alert then

224 poor on as those as well which filed in this court brief 16, copy 1967, rich strive “substan- and were to March then sent 9 process” equality Suggs. tial where and fair brief advo- counsel acts in an active the role study my After cate. counsel, presentation points and the say they I not had the case briefed situation, at- Of course such “against” They noted rather client. their torney support his case client’s by Suggs every each and claim advanced ability. Conversely, best and cited seriatim the decisions no had were bound to tell the rich man he already disposed of court which had each case, professional integrity would such claim. It was the brief which require poor no less that he do for the “against” Suggs facts and the —the court, once man. And as an officer of the against law him. were having pressed service, if coun- been into frivolous, III wholly sel “finds his to be case it, after a conscientious examination of honorably had and con- Counsel here request he should so advise the scientiously performed as offi- their honor, permission to withdraw.”10 In all They they had cers of the told us court. scrupulous attorney do no less. concluded that “there no non-frivolous question which counsel could attorneys It here is obvious that these court,” they decided, proper- so duty, days so af- conceived their two They ly, according here. Anders, May 10,1967 ter filed on Suggs would have bound to advise been so They their motion to had al- withdraw. seeking if he had “rich” man their been a ready their and had furnished filed brief judgment. They professional had Suggs copy obviously under- it. It is Suggs, record, conferred viewed with having prejudicial seen standable no law, applicable conferred researched the already record, they error had attorney, had made with trial professional judgment said what their concerning investigations independent said, they told had them should allegations Suggs. proffered by certain they nothing Conscientiously to add. Douglas (Compare State contrary. could file brief to the 358, 814, 353, 9 L.Ed.2d 83 S.Ct. 372 U.S. (1963) Anders, 386 cited 811 I deem it certain that it never occurred 1396.) they 741, ad- And so at 87 S.Ct. to them in view Federal Rules vised this court. points upon cases, decided judge sought they the trial had never been asked then, Even had “arguably” rule now case, be advanced as no doubt be- from the supporting willingness comply cause imprecation our Judicial Council pointed Thus counsel to Anders which remain in the ease.7 procedure by. saw a defect accorded IV must courts. California California give hearing time “to raise on for case came Before this chooses,” the Court said.11 1967, May 16, Supreme Court on 738, 1396, 8. L.Ed.2d States, 386 U.S. S.Ct. 18 v. United 6. see And Johnson (1967). (1966). U.S.App.D.C. 360 F.2d 9. Id. 1396. at supra 7. Johnson See Id. at S.Ct. concurring Judge Burger’s note that; 30-32, already U.S.App.D.C. done But here opinion, finding 845-847; no non-frivolous them- cf. Ellis v. F.2d at selves, they points Suggs raised S.Ct. 356 U.S. specified. L.Ed.2d 1060 combing the court the burden14 of and with the so, After he has done scrutiny, possible points Anders went error. lant’s say, counsel—then “the court—not on to Obviously, I do do not read Anders as proceeds, all examination suggest my colleagues jf simply after full and so proceedings, whether the to decide law, majority opinion becomes the wholly 386 U.S. wjn case is really busy.15 frivolous.” added.) (Emphasis 1400. 87 S.Ct. at here can be To the extent that Anders apply, shall have the court

said to after points appellant desires

examined the frivolous, finds them and then raise request “may grant counsel’s court appeal insofar dismiss the

withdraw and requirements

as federal are concerned.”12 And the this WOOD,Appellant, Vance L. record, specified are, frivolous13 on this accordingly —and should be America, UNITED STATES of says. It Anders dismissed. That is what goes Appellee. my opin- saying, in without further No. 21496. ground ion, upon which the that is the Appeals United States Court of motion of counsel to withdraw should District of Columbia Circuit. granted. Jan. 1968. colleagues my The course Anders, embarked, contrary to have No seems with mischief. to be surfeited attorney ruling, nor ask for a

trial need judge give an

raise a claim and opportunity trial it, pass upon request nor instruction, exception nor take charge given. con- No matter how

clusively precedents may seem our point, foreclosed

have consideration back, attorney sit trial need expectation out-

secure prove unsatisfac-

come the trial shall attorneys appoint

tory, they choose.

who can claim whatever Then, according colleagues, my our

court-appointed move appearance put upon

withdraw their at 1400. 386 U.S. 87 S.Ct risen from “Our case load has to 78 per judgeship cases the last few Chapman years § Sec 28 U.S.C. increase.” and continues supra v. State of note possibilities U.S. at 15. The are substantial. year, the first nine months Judge Columbia, 14. Chief Bazelon in letter in the District occurred Attorney May 17, 1967, robberies, aggravated General dated 2400 cases burglaries assault, 10,535 stated: and 5921 auto “Ninety-three percent (Uniform the criminal thefts. Grime Statistics cases tried in the United District States Bureau of Investi- leased Federal 11, 1967.) gation, Court for the District of Columbia December appealed [adding court,” that] to this

Case Details

Case Name: Zedekiah Suggs v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Jan 4, 1968

Citation: 391 F.2d 971

Docket Number: 20463

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.