Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantattorneyappealtrialmotionhabeas corpuspost-trial motionjury trial
defendantattorneyappealtrialmotionhabeas corpuspost-trial motionjury trial

Related Cases

Miller v. Angliker, 848 F.2d 1312
View Case »
Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067
View Case »
Bell & Marra, pllc v. Sullivan, 300 Mont. 530, 6 P.3d 965, 2000 MT 206
View Case »
Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 672, 701 S.E.2d 61
View Case »
Frey v. Department of Health and Human Services, 106 F.R.D. 32, 50 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1381
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

U.S. ex rel. Wilcox v. Johnson, 555 F.2d 115

Facts

Norman Wilcox was convicted of rape in 1967 after a non-jury trial in Philadelphia, where he presented an alibi defense. After several unsuccessful appeals and post-trial motions, he filed a habeas corpus petition, claiming he was denied the right to testify at his retrial. During the retrial, his attorney, Ms. Carolyn E. Temin, insisted on a defense based on consent rather than non-involvement, leading to a conflict with Wilcox, who wanted to testify. The trial judge ruled that if Wilcox took the stand, Temin would withdraw as counsel, forcing him to represent himself, which ultimately led Wilcox to decide against testifying.

Norman Wilcox was convicted of rape in 1967 after a non-jury trial in Philadelphia, where he presented an alibi defense. After several unsuccessful appeals and post-trial motions, he filed a habeas corpus petition, claiming he was denied the right to testify at his retrial. During the retrial, his attorney, Ms. Carolyn E. Temin, insisted on a defense based on consent rather than non-involvement, leading to a conflict with Wilcox, who wanted to testify. The trial judge ruled that if Wilcox took the stand, Temin would withdraw as counsel, forcing him to represent himself, which ultimately led Wilcox to decide against testifying.

Issue

Whether Norman Wilcox was unconstitutionally deprived of his right to testify at his trial.

Whether Norman Wilcox was unconstitutionally deprived of his right to testify at his trial.

Rule

A defendant in a criminal trial has a constitutional right to testify in his own defense, which cannot be waived by counsel without the defendant's consent.

A defendant in a criminal trial has a constitutional right to testify in his own defense, which cannot be waived by counsel without the defendant's consent.

Analysis

The court found that the trial judge's ruling created an impermissible choice for Wilcox between his right to testify and his right to counsel. The District Judge concluded that Wilcox would have testified had he not been informed that doing so would result in his counsel's withdrawal. This ruling was seen as a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, as it forced him to forgo one constitutional right in favor of another.

The court found that the trial judge's ruling created an impermissible choice for Wilcox between his right to testify and his right to counsel. The District Judge concluded that Wilcox would have testified had he not been informed that doing so would result in his counsel's withdrawal. This ruling was seen as a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, as it forced him to forgo one constitutional right in favor of another.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the District Court's decision to grant the writ of habeas corpus, concluding that Wilcox was deprived of his fundamental right to a fair trial.

The court affirmed the District Court's decision to grant the writ of habeas corpus, concluding that Wilcox was deprived of his fundamental right to a fair trial.

Who won?

Norman Wilcox prevailed in the case because the court found that his constitutional rights were violated when he was forced to choose between testifying and being represented by counsel.

Norman Wilcox prevailed in the case because the court found that his constitutional rights were violated when he was forced to choose between testifying and being represented by counsel.

You must be