Owen F. Majeske v. United States

Majeske was convicted of the crime of reproducing currency, 18 U.S.C.A. § 474 , in five counts, after a trial before a judge and a jury.

He raises two questions only. First, he claims the trial court abused its discretion in the denial of a motion for continuance on the day the case was called for trial. Second, Majeske contends he was denied his constitutional right to be represented by prepared counsel.

Majeske hired and retained one Cletus J. Hanifin to represent him in the District Court. He represents that he consulted with and prepared the case with Mr. Hanifin before trial. At the time set for arraignment, December 9, 1957, Harry Alkow, an attorney duly admitted to practice in the court, represented Majeske. The latter claims this was an accommodation to Hanifin, but there is no such suggestion in the record before us. Alkow appeared to ask that the trial be postponed upon the day it was set, January 7, 1958, a month after the arraignment. Later he represented that he was not an associate of the office of Hanifin, but did “certain work for them.” Alkow requested a continuance because “Mr. Hanifin was in a jury trial, believing he would be here this morning and he is still…