Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Leonard Robinson and Isaac Bailey v. State of Tennessee and Weldon Cox, Warden, Tennessee State Penitentiary

474 F.2d 1273

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-03-07
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • Exclusion of the testimony of a witness who "violat[ed] ... a sequestration order ... did not represent any deprivation of the appellants' constitutional rights.... [T]he witness was not an eyewitness to the killing and ... his testimony would have been of little if any help to appellants."

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Leonard Robinson and Isaac Bailey v. State of Tennessee and Weldon Cox, Warden, Tennessee State Penitentiary. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
9 opinions
ROBINSON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE,474 F.2d 1273(6th Cir. 1973)
LEONARD ROBINSON AND ISAAC BAILEY, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, v. STATE OF
TENNESSEE AND WELDON COX, WARDEN, TENNESSEE STATE PENITENTIARY,
RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.
No. 72-1547.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued February 5, 1973.
Decided March 7, 1973.
Lowry F. Kline (Court appointed), Chattanooga, Tenn., for petitioners-appellants.

R. Jackson Rose, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, Tenn., David M. Pack, Atty. Gen., of counsel, for respondents-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and EDWARDS and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[1] Appellants appeal from denial of their petitions for writs of habeas corpus by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Southern Division. They present three appellate claims: 1) denial of effective assistance of counsel at their state court trial; 2) denial of due process in being refused the opportunity to call a particular witness, and 3) denial of due process by prejudicial remarks of the prosecuting attorney in his jury argument.

[2] On review of the appellate briefs and oral arguments the two orders filed by the District Judge in the District Court proceedings and the transcripts of the two state court trials, we affirm the judgment of the District Court denying habeas corpus relief,340 F. Supp. 82.

[3] The remarks of the prosecutor complained of clearly do not rise to federal constitutional dimensions.

[4] The refusal of the state trial judge to allow a witness to testify when such witness had been in the courtroom all during the trial, in violation of a sequestration order, was within the discretion vested in the trial judge.SeeUnited States v. Brooks,303 F.2d 851(6th Cir. 1962). It certainly did not represent any deprivation of appellants' constitutional rights. Review of the first state court trial record shows conclusively that the witness was not an eyewitness to the killing and that his testimony would have been of little if any help to appellants.

[5] Additionally, the record discloses that separate counsel had been appointed for each appellant, but that appellant Bailey voluntarily discharged his appointed counsel and retained the samePage 1274counsel who had been appointed for appellant Robinson. In this set of circumstances, we find no deprivation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

[6] The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.Page 1370