United States v. Berlin Acey Odom

423 F.2d 875 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Berlin Acey ODOM, Appellant. No. 24494. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 24, 1970, Rehearing Denied April 21, 1970. Peter R. Stromer (argued), Mountain View, Cal., for appellant. David P. Curnow (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Wm. Matthew Byrne, Jr., U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before MERRILL, CARTER and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges. JAMES M. CARTER, Circuit Judge: 1 Appellant Odom was found guilty by a jury of violating the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. 2312. Odom's sole defense at trial was temporary insanity during the critical time of interstate transportation. Odom's primary claim on appeal, where he is now represented by counsel, is that he should not have been permitted to act as his own counsel at trial. We find no merit to this and other claims of error. 2 Prior to the start of the trial, and while Odom was still represented by counsel, a hearing was held before the court on the issue of Odom's competency to stand trial and to assist in his own defense. Two psychiatrists were called and testified. They were examined both by counsel for the government and for Odom, and at length by the court. The…

Appellant Odom was found guilty by a jury of violating the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2312 . Odom’s sole defense at trial was temporary insanity during the critical time of interstate transportation. Odom’s primary claim on appeal, where he is now represented by counsel, is that he should not have been permitted to act as his own counsel at trial. We find no merit to this and other claims of error.

Prior to the start of the trial, and while Odom was still represented by counsel, a hearing was held before the court on the issue of Odom’s competency to stand trial and to assist in his own defense. Two psychiatrists were called and testified. They were examined both by counsel for the government and for Odom, and at length by the court. The court found Odom was fully competent to stand trial and assist in his own defense.

On the morning trial was to start, Odom moved to discharge his appointed counsel and to act as his own counsel because “[counsel] sees the case one way and I would probably see it another and there would be a conflict.” The judge then interrogated Odom at length about the wisdom of the step he was taking. Odom indicated he knew of his constitutional right to counsel.…

(specially concurring):

I concur in all aspects of the majority opinion save one: the suggestion that the standard for competency to stand trial is identical with the standards of competency to waive counsel and to represent one’s self. The comparative levels of competency required in these three situations present an extremely difficult problem, but it is a problem that need not be resolved on this appeal. I am satisfied from the record that Odom met even the most elevated of these standards.