UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT LEE PIKE, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court erroneously denied the defendant's request to represent himself, requiring reversal.
The defendant was convicted for failing to report for a physical examination and refusing induction. He requested to represent himself, which the tria…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Self-Representation (Pro Se) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Pike appeals from his conviction for failing to report for his physical examination and for refusing to submit to induction in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462.
We reverse Pike’s conviction because the district court erroneously denied Pike’s timely request to represent himself. As Judge Medina observed in United States v. Plattner (2d Cir. 1964) 330 F. 2d 271, 273: “The right to act pro se * * * is a right arising out of the Federal Constitution and not the mere product of legislation or judicial decision. Thus we would be required to remand the case, even if no prejudice to Plattner were shown to have resulted from the refusal to permit him to act pro se.” Nothing in the record suggests that Pike’s election "io waive counsel and to conduct his own defense was incompetent or un intelligent. See Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann (1942) 317 U.S. 269, 279, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed. 268. This is not a case in which the court appointed counsel to provide assistance to a defendant in representing himself.
It is unnecessary to discuss Pike’s other contentions. They are either authoritatively decided by other cases that have come down since the appeal was taken or arise from circumstances that are unlikely to recur in the event of retrial.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the district court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Kennedy, 564 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir. 1977)
-
United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
-
Chapman v. United States, 553 F.2d 886 (5th Cir. 1977)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Adams v. United States ex rel. McCANN, 317 U.S. 269 (U.S. 1942)
- United States v. Raphael Plattner, 330 F.2d 271 (2d Cir. 1964)