UNITED STATES EX REL. MCCANN
v.
ADAMS, WARDEN, ET AL.
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.
McCann sought habeas corpus relief to challenge whether he had intelligently waived his rights to counsel and jury trial, an issue that the trial court had approved but that lower courts on appeal had not addressed on its merits. The Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court of Appeals' denial of the habeas corpus petition and held that McCann should be allowed to present evidence establishing whether his waiver was made with full knowledge and understanding of his rights, as this factual issue had never been adjudicated by the lower courts.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Pee Curiam.
This proceeding is a sequel to Adams v. U. S. ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269. We there reversed an order of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit discharging the present relator from custody. We did so because we held that, if his waiver was the exercise of an intelligent choice made with the considered approval of the trial court, he could as a matter of law waive his right to a jury trial without being represented by counsel. After the case went back to the Circuit Court of Appeals on mandate and further steps not necessary here to recount were taken, the relator filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court which, with supporting affidavits, adequately raised the issue whether in fact he intelligently — with full knowledge of his rights and capacity to understand them — waived his right to the assistance of counsel and to trial by jury. That issue, as appears from our former opinion, was explicitly withdrawn from consideration on the habeas corpus proceedings previously before the Circuit Court of Appeals. 126 F. 2d 774. That issue, now fairly tendered by the petition for habeas corpus below, has never been adjudicated on its merits by the lower courts. But it is no longer within the bosom of the trial court. Nor can it be disposed of on the appeal of his conviction, for the claim rests on materials dehors the trial proceedings. It is a claim which the relator should be allowed to establish, if he can. We camiot say that, in the light of the supporting affidavits, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was palpably unmeritorious, and should have been dismissed without more. We are compelled therefore to accede to the Government’s consent to a reversal of the order of the Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the order denying the application for the writ of habeas corpus.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari are therefore granted and the judgment is reversed for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Petitioner’s applications for other relief are denied.
So ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1952)…(knowing use of perjured testimony by prosecution); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 (1938) (no intelligent waiver of counsel in federal court); Waley v. Johnston, 316 U. S. 101 (1942) (coerced plea of guilty); United States ex rel. McCann v. Adams, 320 U. S. 220 (1943) (no. intelligent waiver of jury trial in federal court); House v. Mayo, 324 U. S. 42 (1945) (denial of right to consult with counsel). During 1936 and 1937, an annual average of 310 applications for habeas corpus were filed in the District C…
-
Sunal v. Large, 332 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1947)…Kansas, 316 U. S. 255. Moreover, this is not a situation where the facts relied on were dehors the record and therefore not open to consideration and review on appeal. See Waley v. Johnston, 316 U. S. 101, 104; United States ex rel. McCann v. Adams, 320 U. S. 220, 221. And see Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 274-275. The error was of record in each case. It is said, however, that the failure to appeal was excusable, since under the decisions as they then stood — March 22, 1945, and May…
-
Carter v. Illinois, 329 U.S. 173 (U.S. 1946)…efend himself or to confess guilt. Under appropriate circumstances the Constitution requires that counsel be tendered; it does not require that under all circumstances [*175] counsel be forced upon a defendant. United States ex rel. McCann v. Adams, 320 U. S. 220. The solicitude for securing justice thus embodied in the Due Process Clause is not satisfied by formal compliance or merely procedural regularity. It is not conclusive that the proceedings resulting in incarceration are unassailable on the face of…
Previewing 3 of 12 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 ex rel. McCANN v. Adams, 126 F.2d 774 (2d Cir. 1942)