United States v. Delbert W. Wadsworth and Kurt W. Wadsworth

Delbert and Kurt Wadsworth appeal from the judgment of conviction for rescue of seized property in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212 (b) (1982). Each appellant contends that he was forced to go to trial, over his objections, without representation or time to prepare a defense. In viewing Delbert Wadsworth’s appeal, we must decide whether the failure of the court to inquire if the accused had the funds to hire an attorney, or, wished to waive the assistance of an attorney at trial, constituted a violation of his sixth amendment right to the representation of counsel. We conclude that the court’s failure to make such inquiry was prejudicial error and reverse.

We reverse the judgment against Kurt Wadsworth because the district court abused its discretion in (1) dismissing appointed counsel, (2) denying the motion for a substitution of counsel, and (3) denying the motion for a continuance to prepare for trial.

In Part One of this opinion we discuss the issues and the facts pertinent thereto regarding Delbert Wadsworth’s appeal. In Part Two we consider the relevant facts and analyze Kurt Wadsworth’s claim of constitutional deprivation.

PART ONE

Delbert Wadsworth argues that the record…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

A newborn infant must be given nourishment. Nothing that the infant can do will justify the failure of a mother to meet its need. The majority would apparently apply the same standard to a judge in his duty to provide counsel for one accused of a crime. The Constitution does not require so much.

A timely request for counsel was made by Kurt Wadsworth. Competent counsel was provided in response to that request. A difficulty arose because Kurt wanted to dictate defense strategy. Counsel is not required to ignore legal precedent and put aside all notions of how to proceed with a legal defense in an effort to satisfy the wishes of a client who demands that he do so. A court s proper use of sanctions preclude that course.

Unfortunately, these defendants have been labeled by some as “tax protesters.” That label has no use in a court of law. America was built by “protesters.” Their input should always be considered. It is legitimate for a court on appeal to be concerned about those rare instances when those who are identified as “protesters” (of any sort) are given less than their due at trial. That was not true here. The court did more than was…

830 F.2d 1500 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delbert W. WADSWORTH and Kurt W. Wadsworth, Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 86-3194, 86-3195. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 8, 1987. Decided Oct. 22, 1987. Daniel L. Hawkley and Kim Lindquist, Boise, Idaho, for plaintiff-appellee. Bryan K. Murray, Randall D. Schulthies, Pocatello, Idaho, for defendants-appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. Before FARRIS, ALARCON and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. ALARCON, Circuit Judge: 1 Delbert and Kurt Wadsworth appeal from the judgment of conviction for rescue of seized property in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7212 (b) (1982). Each appellant contends that he was forced to go to trial, over his objections, without representation or time to prepare a defense. In viewing Delbert Wadsworth's appeal, we must decide whether the failure of the court to inquire if the accused had the funds to hire an attorney, or, wished to waive the assistance of an attorney at trial, constituted a violation of his sixth amendment right to the representation of counsel. We conclude that the court's failure to make such inquiry…