Alfredo Delagado Arellanes v. United States

353 F.2d 270 Alfredo Delagado ARELLANES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 19949. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Nov. 1, 1965, Rehearing Denied Jan. 3, 1966. Garrett P. Graham, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Cecil F. Poole, U.S. Atty., Jerrold M. Ladar, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Before CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge, MADDEN, Judge of the Court of Claims, and HAMLEY, Circuit Judge. MADDEN, Judge: 1 This is an appeal from the denial by the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of California of the appellant's motion to vacate sentences. The motion was made pursuant to Section 2255 of Title 28, United States Code. The sentences complained of were imposed by the District Court after the conviction of the appellant for violation of the Jones-Miller Narcotics Act, 21 U.S.C. 174, 176a; 26 U.S.C.A. 7237(d). The conviction was appealed and was affirmed by this court, 302 F.2d 603 , on April 23, 1962. On March 18, 1963, the appellant filed the instant motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The District Court denied the motion and the appellant appealed. This court reversed the order denying the motion, and directed the…

This is an appeal from the denial by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California of the appellant’s motion to vacate sentences. The motion was made pursuant to Section 2255 of Title 28, United States Code. The sentences complained of were imposed by the District Court after the conviction of the appellant for violation of the Jones-Miller Narcotics Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 174 , 176a; 26 U.S.C. § 7237 (d). The conviction was appealed and was affirmed by this court, 302 F.2d 603 , on April 23, 1962. On March 18, 1963, the appellant filed the instant motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . The District Court denied the motion and the appellant appealed. This court reversed the order *272 denying the motion, and directed the District Court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the facts relevant to the appellant’s motion, 326 F.2d 560 . Such a hearing was held. The appellant was represented by appointed counsel and both the appellant and the Government presented oral testimony and documentary evidence.

Section 2255 requires, in paragraph-3, that the District Court make findings of fact and state conclusions of law when it holds an evidentiary hearing pursuant to…

(dissenting) :

The district court stated in its opinion, among other things:

In my view, the circumstances revealed in the quoted portion of the district court opinion and as related in the majority opinion demonstrate that appellant did'not have adequate representation by counsel at his trial.

Where such representation is inadequate because tainted with grossly improper conduct I perceive no room for applying a “clean hands” doctrine for the purpose of letting the judgment stand. “Clean hands” is a doctrine of the law of equity; here we are dealing with constitutional rights in a federal criminal prosecution. Very few defendants come into federal criminal courts with clean hands. The Sixth Amendment is available to all defendants.

With due deference, I feel that whenever federal judicial processes, including *276 the conduct of attorneys as officers of the court, have been, as here, contaminated by fraud, the integrity of the system can be vindicated only by starting over. I would reverse.