Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Robert Lee Pike

439 F.2d 695

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1971-03-04
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • “ ‘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.’ ”, quoting United States v. Plattner, 330 F.2d 271, 273 (2 Cir. 1964).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Robert Lee Pike. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
15 opinions
UNITED STATES v. PIKE,439 F.2d 695(9th Cir. 1971)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert Lee PIKE, Appellant.
No. 26044.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 4, 1971.
Daniel Kallen (argued), of Somers Kallen, Santa Monica, Cal., for appellant.

Andrew R. Willing, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U.S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Crim. Div., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before MERRILL and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON,fn*District Judge.
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 actpro 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 actpro se."Nothing in the record suggests that Pike's election to waive counsel and to conduct his own defense was incompetent or unintelligent.Page 696SeeAdams 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.
  1. Hon. Gus J. Solomon, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. ↩