District of Columbia v. Scott
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
In this case the Municipal Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of appel-lee Scott, on the ground that he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel, and granted him a new trial. Scott v. District of Columbia, 1953, D.C.Mun. App., 99 A.2d 641 .
Each case of this sort must be judged on its own merits. The decision here certainly should not be taken as a holding that a defendant can escape justice merely by hiring a lawyer who represents, in another case, a witness against that defendant. It means that under all the circumstances of this case there was a failure of representation which deprived Scott of a fair trial. There is no suggestion that there was any chicanery on the part of the accused’s attorney, or scheme to thwart justice. The opinion of the Municipal Court of Appeals has our approval, and its decision will be Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(defense counsel also justice of peace who signed arrest warrants)
-
(defense counsel had represented witnesses who testified against defendant)
Cited by 14 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.