Legal Opinion

Frank Joseph McCartney v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided April 7, 1965No. 19672_1PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

While it may be argued that appointment of counsel in a proceeding to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is discretionary with the United States District Court in a case such as the one before us, we do not need to direct our attention to that question here. The District Court in this case exercised its judgment and appointed counsel to represent the prisoner, McCartney. Having thus determined that counsel should have been appointed, the District Court should have taken steps to insure effective representation.

Counsel apparently misconceived his role. It was his duty to honorably…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. United States v. Bennie E. BarnesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
  2. Frank J. McCartney v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967
  3. George J. Harders v. State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967
  4. Barrett v. Mississippi BarMississippi Supreme Court · 1995
  5. United States v. Eric ScurryCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2021

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API