Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Chris22, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

United States v. Dougherty

(1972)

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 473 F.2d 1113

tl;dr:

Included in the right to effective assistance of counsel is the right to dispense of one's dis-satisfactory lawyer and represent oneself.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for United States v. Dougherty

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the United States v. Dougherty case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingUnited States v. Dougherty case brief facts & holding

Facts:The defendants were members of the "D.C. Nine" who had...

Holding:The court held that the defendants were entitled to conduct...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the United States v. Dougherty case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
United States v. Dougherty | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge:
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The "D.C. Nine" appealed their convictions for malicious destruction and unlawful entry at Dow Chemical's Washington offices. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial based on one contention but rejected the other two. The judge deferred ruling on pro se motions to ensure the waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent and to consider the possibility of prejudice to the defendants and their co-defendants. The judge denied the defendants' pro se motions to waive their right to counsel due to their lack of legal training, the multi-defendant context of the trial, and the seriousness of the charges. The judge also allowed a substitution of counsel for one defendant dissatisfied with their previous representation. During the trial, the defendants were allowed to exercise their peremptory challenges in propria persona, and each defendant was permitted to make a five-minute opening statement and testify in narrative form. Two defendants entered pleas of nolo contendere to one count of malicious destruction of property. The defense's case consisted entirely of defendants' testimony, with several disruptions requiring a brief recess and ejection of a spectator. The defendants argue that the judge violated their constitutional and statutory rights by refusing to allow them to represent themselves, citing the Sixth Amendment and 28 U.S.C. § 1654. The Government argues that a defendant's right to represent themselves is not protected by the Sixth Amendment but only exists by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1654, which can be limited by the judge if it would disrupt the trial or interfere with the defendant's case. The judge denied the defendants' pro se motions to waive their right to counsel due to their lack of legal training, the multi-defendant context of the trial, and the seriousness of the charges.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the United States v. Dougherty case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part), author: BAZELON, Chief Judge,ADAMS, Circuit Judge:
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The author disagrees with the court's decision on jury nullification and finds the trial judge's lack of transparency unwarranted and harmful. The author believes that nullification serves an important function in the criminal process by allowing the jury to bring a sense of fairness and particularized justice to bear on the case. An explicit nullification instruction would not increase the likelihood of unjust conviction or make unjust acquittals more common. The real problem is prejudice and parochial values that prompt acquittal, and the solution is to spotlight these issues and deter their implementation in subsequent cases.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the United States v. Dougherty case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Rehearing), author: LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge:
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

Defendants have the right to represent themselves, but this right is not absolute. A trial judge may deny pro se representation if the defendant has a history of disruption, refusal to cooperate, or inability to waive counsel. The judge must explicitly state the reasons for denial. If there is no appropriate basis for denial, the defendant is entitled to a trial where they can represent themselves. The conventional doctrine of harmless error cannot be applied to pro se representation. The petition for rehearing was denied, but Circuit Judge Adams dissented.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the United States v. Dougherty case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

United States v. Dougherty

Chat for United States v. Dougherty
brief-756
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.