The petition to the District Court for a writ of habeas corpus
adequately raised the issue, not previously adjudicated, whether,
in a prosecution in the District Court which resulted in a judgment
of conviction, the petitioner had intelligently, with full
knowledge of his rights and capacity to understand them, waived his
right to the assistance of counsel and to trial by jury, and, in
the circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to
establish his claim. P.
320 U. S.
221.
136 F.2d 680 reversed.
Petition for a writ of certiorari to review the affirmance of an
order denying an application for a writ of habeas corpus.
Page 320 U. S. 221
PER CURIAM.
This proceeding is a sequel to
Adams v. United States ex
rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269. We
there reversed an order of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the
Second Circuit discharging the present relator from custody. 126
F.2d 774. We did so because we held that, if his waiver was the
exercise of an intelligent choice made with the considered approval
of the trial court, he could as a matter of law waive his right to
a jury trial without being represented by counsel. After the case
went back to the Circuit Court of Appeals on mandate and further
steps, not necessary here to recount, were taken, the relator filed
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court which,
with supporting affidavits, adequately raised the issue whether in
fact he intelligently, with full knowledge of his rights and
capacity to understand them, waived his right to the assistance of
counsel and to trial by jury. That issue, as appears from our
former opinion, was explicitly withdrawn from consideration on the
habeas corpus proceedings previously before the Circuit Court of
Appeals. 126 F.2d 774. That issue, now fairly tendered by the
petition for habeas corpus below, has never been adjudicated on its
merits by the lower courts. But it is no longer within the bosom of
the trial court. Nor can it be disposed of on the appeal of his
conviction, for the claim rests on materials
dehors the
trial proceedings. It is a claim which the relator should be
allowed to establish, if he can. We cannot say that, in the light
of the supporting affidavits, the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus was palpably unmeritorious and should have been dismissed
without more. We are compelled therefore to accede to the
Government's consent to a reversal of the order of the
Page 320 U. S. 222
Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the order denying the
application for the writ of habeas corpus.
The motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and
the petition for certiorari are therefore granted, and the judgment
is reversed for further proceedings not inconsistent with this
opinion. Petitioner's applications for other relief are denied.
So ordered.