Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

United States Ex Rel. McCann v. Adams

United States Ex Rel. McCann v. Adams, 320 U.S. 220 (1943)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1943-11-08
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • no. intelligent waiver of jury trial in federal court

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States Ex Rel. McCann v. Adams. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
35 opinions
U.S. EX REL. McCANNv. ADAMS,320 U.S. 220(1943)
64 S.Ct. 14
UNITED STATES EX REL. McCANNv. ADAMS, WARDEN, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT.
No. 371.
Decided November 8, 1943.
The petition to the District Court for a writ of habeas corpus adequately raised the issue, not previously adjudicated, whether, in a prosecution in the District Court which resulted in a judgment of conviction, the petitioner had 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; and, in the circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to establish his claim. P. 221.136 F.2d 680, reversed.
PETITION for a writ of certiorari to review the affirmance of
an order denying an application for a writ of habeas corpus.
Gene McCann, pro se.Page 221Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Tom C.Clark, andMr. Oscar A. Provostwere on the brief for respondents.
PER CURIAM.
This proceeding is a sequel toAdamsv.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 ofhabeas corpusin 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 That issue, as appears from our former opinion, was explicitly withdrawn from consideration on thehabeas corpusproceedings previously before the Circuit Court of Appeals.126 F.2d 774. That issue, now fairly tendered by the petition forhabeas corpusbelow, 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 materialsdehorsthe trial proceedings. It is a claim which the relator should be allowed to establish, if he can. We cannot say that, in the light of the supporting affidavits, the petition for a writ ofhabeas corpuswas 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 thePage 222Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the order denying the application for the writ ofhabeas corpus.

The motion for leave to proceedin forma pauperisand 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.