U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1955

James Robert Taylor v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided July 7, 1955 · Prettyman, Fahy, Bastian

226 F.2d 337; 96 U.S. App. D.C. 379; 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3063 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Messrs. James S. Brocard and D. A. St. Angelo, Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Arthur J. McLaughlin, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for ap-pellee.

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Alphonzo Edwards v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1958)
Stephens v. United States (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1978)
United States v. Gregory Hurt (D.C. Cir. 1976)
United States v. Davis (U.S. Army Court of Military Review 1976)
United States v. Garland Jeffers (7th Cir. 1975)
United States v. Frederick John Donatelli (1st Cir. 1973)
Austin v. State (Md. 1992)
Commonwealth v. Leslie (Mass. 1978)
People v. Gonzalez (N.Y. 1972)
People v. La Brake (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1970)
John Bernard Doyle v. United States (9th Cir. 1966)
People v. Olshen (New York County Courts 1961)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This proceeding was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate the sentence imposed on appellant upon his conviction on a narcotics charge. The main ground urged is that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel, as guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment. Counsel on this appeal were appointed by the District Court and were not appellant’s trial counsel.

We think the motion, under the particular circumstances of the case, should have been granted.

Reversed and remanded with directions to vacate the sentence and award a new trial.

PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge.

I would remand the Section 2255 proceeding to the District Court for a finding, after an evidentiary hearing, including both oral testimony and cross-examination, whether Taylor knew at the time he employed counsel that these counsel represented Monroe. See United States v. Hayman, 1952, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.