# Millard Robert Beasley v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · February 1, 1974 · 491 F.2d 687

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9460280

## Case

- **Full name:** Millard Robert BEASLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 1, 1974
- **Citations:** 491 F.2d 687; 26 A.L.R. Fed. 204; 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10256
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Edwards
- **Judges:** Edwards, Celebrezze, McCree
- **Cited by:** 480 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9460280

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that it is a violation of the Sixth Amendment for defense counsel to deprive a criminal defendant of a substantial defense by his own ineffectiveness or incompetence
- noting that defense counsel “must conscientiously protect his client’s interest” by asserting “all apparently substantial defenses available to the defendant . . . in a proper and timely manner”
- holding a strategy could be so bad as to amount to ineffective assistance of counsel

## Opinion text

EDWARDS, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in Judge Celebrezze’s remand of this case for new trial. The phrase “farce and a mockery, shocking to the Court” is too subjective a standard to employ as the sole criterion for determining whether or not there has been a Sixth Amendment deprivation of counsel.
The District Judge has entered strong findings of fact concerning the incompetence and ineffectiveness of appellant’s trial counsel. These findings do not appear to me to be “clearly erroneous.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9460280. Public record. Not legal advice.