De Jordan v. Hunter

4 Citing cases

  1. United States v. De Jordan

    86 F. Supp. 770 (D. Minn. 1949)   Cited 1 times

    See DeJordan v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 137 F.2d 943, certiorari denied. De Jordan v. Hunter, 320 U.S. 779, 64 S.Ct. 87, 88 L.Ed. 468; DeJordan v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 145 F.2d 287, certiorari denied 325 U.S. 853, 65 S.Ct. 1083, 89 L.Ed. 1974. The record now before this Court was before the Court in the last-cited cases.

  2. Hayman v. United States

    205 F.2d 891 (9th Cir. 1953)   Cited 10 times

    The point is not involved. Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 50 S.Ct. 253, 74 L.Ed. 854; De Jordan v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 145 F.2d 287; Right of counsel may be waived. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461: "* * * [W]aiver of the right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused."

  3. De Jordan v. United States

    187 F.2d 263 (8th Cir. 1951)   Cited 4 times

    "The Court further finds from the evidence that the petitioner at the time of his plea of guilty fully knew and understood his right to have counsel, fully knew and understood the nature of the charges contained in the indictment, and without being deceived or misled in any way, waived his right to counsel and voluntarily entered his plea of guilty." An appeal was taken from this latter order denying appellant's application for the writ of habeas corpus in 1944, and that order was reviewed and sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in DeJordan v. Hunter, 145 F.2d 287; Id., 325 U.S. 853, 65 S.Ct. 1083, 89 L.Ed. 1974. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255, appellant filed the motion now under consideration in the United States District Court for Minnesota, where he was originally sentenced.

  4. Scott v. Johnston

    71 F. Supp. 117 (N.D. Cal. 1947)   Cited 2 times

    At the time of the instant judgment and sentence it appears that no provision was made for official court reporters, and that a formal transcript of the proceedings is not available. Under the circumstances the customary procedure invoked by the trial judge, and confirmed by the court reporter, must be given due consideration in weighing the evidence in the light of all of the surrounding circumstances in determining whether or not petitioner has discharged the burden of proof that he did not competently and intelligently waive his Constitutional right of assistance of counsel. Harpin v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 109 F.2d 434, 435; Franzeen v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 111 F.2d 817, 819; Lewis v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 112 F.2d 451; Cooke v. Swope, D.C., 28 F. Supp. 492, 493; affirmed 9 Cir., 109 F.2d 955; De Jordan v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 145 F.2d 287, 288; Towne v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 108 F.2d 676, 677; Moore v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 110 F.2d 386, 388. In the well considered case of Dorsey v. Gill, App.D.C., 148 F.2d 857, 874, the Court used this appropriate language: