Justia Federal District Court Opinions

Appellant was convicted of rape. 22 D.C. Code § 2801 (1940). He moved the trial court, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate sentence. The court granted the motion, with concurrence of the prosecuting attorney, but later rescinded the action and denied the motion. The appeal follows.

A careful consideration of the whole record leaves us in serious doubt that appellant enjoyed, in a full sense, due process of law, U.S. Const. Amend. V, especially as regards the right to effective assistance of counsel, U.S. Const. Amend. VI, Glasser v. United States, 1942, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680; Johnson v. Zerbst, 1938, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461; United States v. Wight, 2 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 376; Johnson v. United States, 1940, 71 App.D.C. 400, 110 F.2d 562, and the right to testify in his own behalf, 18 U.S.C. § 3481.¹ Deprivation of those fundamental rights goes to the essence of a fair trial and may be reviewed in this proceeding under Sec. 2255. See Meyers v. United States, 1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 320, 181 F.2d 802, certiorari denied 1950, 339 U.S. 983, 70 S.Ct. 1030, 94 L.Ed. 1387, and cases cited.

We conclude that the order denying the motion should be set aside; that the sentence should be vacated, and that a new trial should be granted. It is

So ordered.