Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Akel v. New York (No. 271)

.

4 ® .

- : ’ °

. .

° ;

4 ‘ e

sd ‘

‘

= — ee -—— tee

= . . i

_—~ oe

= a

.

Supreme Court uf the United States

Oebopen Pia, Tee

/’, p,¢ Het,

me ee —

PETITION FOR A WRIEP OF CERTIORARI

TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE

STATE OF NEW YORK :

Frances Navin

Mimherot the Bar of the

NH re ne Court of the

Cowitedd Nfates

°

bey aT

Oithiee & PLO Ndadt

40 Proaedwa

New York City line NO’ York

WOrth 6 4240

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Opinions below oie : pO eee 1

Jurisdiction... pepe Tse Pen eine ee en

; CQavet ics Preemie sc. csncc cis eiepiednnce tenses 2

Procedural History of the Case eset aacantiekerataaares =

Facts Material to the Questions Presented 000 000000... +-

ARGUMENT

I. Certioras! Should Be Granted Beeause an lin-

portant Question Affecting Wiretapping as Un-

constitutional in the State Courts and the Rights

of Petitioner Under the 14th Amendment Are In-

Lk. pee OicR ned nnS Re ah ey eee Tg te AS nA Re Thc 6

Il. Certiorari Should Be Granted Because an lin--

portant Question Affecting Violation. of the

Right to Counsel Under the Fourteenth ‘Amend.

SOD Tk SONS cc cc

S CUNIIIN ote eng meee lo

APPENDICES:

Judgment of Kings County Court 20000000000... Lea

Memorandum Decision of Appellate Division 200... 19

Opinion of Co-Defendant Maimone, in Ajipetiate

NINE ooo acct etna Sat ene 21

Affirmance’ of Judgment witheut opinion, Court of

‘eae IE conc einnececnontestouces retin hae ch armen te 25

a

ue

il

PAGE

iextracts of Wiretap Testimony ............... ane shavsesetnies San

Extract of Statement of Gesaro and Barone ........52, 33

Memorandum of Hon. Justice Frankfurter denying

BNNs ccarerteccnakcelnnincroenuacies Sasi isiseniacc soma sraneanseooaen Keone 34

AUTHORITIES

Cases: |

Benanti v. /nited States, 855 U.S. 96 00005........ 2, 7,9, 11, 12

Black v. Impelliterri, 201 Mise, 371, aff'd 251 A. D. 671,

an NN WN arse eg se cteemneneeensvi cia ries y

Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 409 eee ee eee ae

Coinmonwealth v. Jester, 100 A. 993, 256 Pa. 441, re-

wersine GS Pa. Super. DOr ................0...0.cccccccoesscseceseseeee - 13

Ex Parte Royall, 117 U. Si 241 00. ee nS 10,11 .

Hoffman v. O'Brien, 88 F. Supp. 490... Y

Hiumann v. Rivera, 71 N. Y.S. 2d 321, 272 A. D. 352... 13

Lee y, State, 244 Ala. 401, 18 So, 2d 590 00... 14

TW, WPOMI, DOE 0). TR DO nih secs ccstcenacscteecesnnsees 10

Matter of Interception of Telephone Communications,

170 X.Y. S. 2d $4, 9 Mise. 2d 12D oo. ee 12°

Nardone v. United States, 3802 U.S. 379 ooo. 2,6

.Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338

ee eee gen neces Moen ecees

Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 0... a OSS aera ee A 11

People v. Akel, 9 A. D. 2d 780; 7 N.Y. 2d 998 oo... 1,3

People v. Akel, 1938 N. ¥.S.2d 95; 199 N. Y.S. 2d 510... 1,3

ili

PAGE

People v, Defore, 242 NOY. 13, 100 N _E os Oy ce rt. de-

: AAR ETM Oy RM oo sc.-s ss acta ee wee aang,

People ve Hulsen & Weber, New i Law Journal,

duly 21, 1960, p. 7, col 1.

People vy, ae eee | Rie Brl | sbeneae Cenpeienne tienen aoe a

oo Pen Ee eg A) as EMER eee ei ce enie

Petition of Ellison, D.C. Texas, 140 : Pfu 5 720, alfa,

RRS Re a ee 1D oo Lee (ace ea any ee Epes atte i4

Pugach v. Dollinge r,.277 I, 2d 7359, cert. a1 ranted SO.

ST hs Bie | FR ties Bent a Fe ea an eee eae 2

Rea ¥. United States, 350 U.S. 214 oo. oie 11

Ruchin + Cabforia. 362 ©.) 166 0 et

J . &

Nehwaris v: Teams, 266 0 OD onc oe ec 11

State v. Beeny, 115 Utah 168, 203 P. 2d 897 2. i4

State v. Davenport, 83 La. Ann. 231 0... Ce ay Cove 14

Stefanelil v. Minard, 342 U.S. 117 ..: SS eee 10

Twining *. New Jersey, 211 US, 78 ......... a

Ul Scex rel. Hail v. Ragen, D.C. TL. 60 FL Supp. S20 1+

United States v. Simone, CL. ALN. Y., 205 BF. Bd 4800. A3

Wagener v. UL S.C. AL Ala, 171 FL 2d 554, eert. denied,

ae ae fe Bet ©. . BR ae eri Dna ee aCe Une BR ee Ran us

Wolf ‘. Colorado, me RR ite TR ha A sre AN ape ie or ira 11

STATUTES CITED

Federal Communications Act of 1934... Een et Wages 2.3

THe Se a OR Chae bai kc eee 2

Tithe 47 UL S.C. AL 3605

iv. th

. PAGE

MV, Corde Cr. Pret. SSG o..ciciccs-csesecs.ccscsccsesessicsceennnssossssoese -13

WY Gates Ce Prec, SOIG8 Sis 3, 11,12

N. Y. Penal Law §502(a) BARBS, sl oe Ba need Wan PURE a Bere dn OR 11

CoNSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

United States Constitution

Sixth Amendment ............-...-.-----0:0-2ee- iy i day ae

Fourteenth Amendment: ‘...................- oa OSB pete =

N.Y. Const., Article 1, §12. 92 cet. ea ee 11

Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2 .............. Cie Se

MISCELLANEOUS é

ak SE OE Be Ce nc ees eee 13

Ix THE

Supreme Court of the United States

Ocrosner Term, 1900

No.

Tuomas AKEI,

; wo. Petitioner,

—against—

Strate or New York,

Responds ut.

=<

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE

STATE OF NEW YORK

To the Honorable the Chief Justice and the Associate

Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:

Petitioner prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review

the judgment of the Court of Appeals of ‘the State of New

York, entered in the above entitled case on March 24, 1960,

é XN. ¥. 2d 998, 199 N. ¥.S. 2d 510.

OPINIONS BELOW ~

No opinions were rendered either by the Trial Court,

or by the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department,

or by the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, {

A.D, 24.780, 193 N. ¥.S. 2d 9557 N.Y. 2d 998,199 N.Y. S.

2d°510. The appendix annexed hereto contains opinions

below. ;

-

Po

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the New York State Court of Appeals

Was pronounced oh the 24th day of March, 1960, and an

order extending the time to fie the within petition for

certiorari was extended to and including July 22, 1960 by

Associate Justice of United States: Supreme Court, JoHN

M. Harnay, on June 23d, 1960. The jurisdiction of this

Court is imvoked under 28-U. S.C. A. S1207(3).

The following cases are believed to sustain jurisdiction:

Benantiv. United States, 355 U.S. 96;

Nardone v. United States, 802 U.S. 379;

Pugach v. Dollinger, 277 F.2d 739; cert. granted

on June 27, 1960, 80 S. Ct. 1614.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ;

1. Whether evidence obtained by interception of tele:

phon communications was illegal and in violation of the

Federal Communications Act of 1934, 47 U. S.C. A. S605,

grt

4

‘

(2. Whether petitioner's constitutional right to due proc-

ess under the Fourteenth Amendment was invaded despite

the Supremacy Clause, Article VIL C lause 2, United States

Constitution and the Sixth Amendment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE >

On February 11, 1938, petitioner was sentenced by: the

County Court of Kings County (Joyce. J.), to a term of

two and one-half to five vears.as a first felony offender

following his conviction by ~ of the crime sof being an

Accessory toa Felony.(P. L. <2

3

Petitioner's contention here is that The introduction at

his State trial of ewidence obtained by the use of wiretaps,

authorized: under New York Code of Crimimal Procedure

$813a, constituted 2 ‘violation of. the provisions of the Fed-

eral Communications Act (47 UL S.C. AL 605),

Following his conviction, petitioner appealed to the Ap-

pellate Division, Second Department. which affirmed with-

out opinion (People ve An TO A, PD. 2d TSO, 1938 N.Y. S,

Yd 95) but referred petitioner to (People ve Marinone, 9

A.D. 2d 7s0, 195 N. ToS. 2d 90), a co-defendant. Leave to

eppeal to the New -York Staté Court of Appeals, wae

granted and that Court also unanimously affirmed without,

‘opinion on Mareh 24, 1860 (People ve Akel. 7 N.Y. 2d 998,

199 N. ¥.S. 2d 510). j

In petitioner's brief to the Court of Appeals, the conten-

tions presented to this Court were not raised. Rather, the

brief there concerned itself with alleged errors Le.:

a) The People failed as a’matter ef law to prove each

and every cssential element of the offense ‘of being

an accessory to a felony; and

b) That the evidence adduced failed to controvert the

presumption of innocence bevond a reasonable

doubt; and ,

c) That he failed to receive a fair and impartial trial

as guarantecd by the due process clauses’ of the

Constitutions. . .

~ On application for admission to bail, to the State Court

of Appeals, pending certiorari before this Court, petitioner's

newly retained courisel, Friinces Kalin. Esq. questioned

tle propriety of the wiretaps and the absence of petitioner's

trial counsel during the People’s summation. Hon. Judge

Stanley He Fuld denied bail pending certiorari.

4

Following, the affirmance by the Court of Appeals, peti-

tioner surrdhdered to commence service of his sentence in

State Prison at Auburn, New York, where he is presently

confined. While petitioner did not move the whole Court of

Appeals to amend. its remittitur to show that the alleged

illegality of the use of wiretap evidence had been considered

and passed upon by it, the federal question was presented

to Associate Judge Fuld. The application for a writ of

certiorari to the United States Supreme Court followed.

FACTS MATERIAL TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED

The wiretaps assailed herein may be found at pages

1020, 1022, 1028, 1024 and 1025, received in evidence as

“People’s Exhibits 7A, 7B, 7C, TD and SA” in the printed

Record on Appeal before the New York State Court of Ap-

“peals, To bolster these wiretaps the People placed a movie

film, taken at the Albany-Scheneetady Airport, in evidence

as “People’s Exhibit 37" (page 1176 of printed Record).

" Petitionér was arrested and charged with the erime of

attempting to harbor the chief prosecution witness, one,

Joseph. Basile, but instead thereof, the real issue became

becloud*d at the trial when the People and its witnesses

repeatedly interjected narcotics and other similar narcotic

transactions in their successtg! efforts to befuddle the jury.

As the evidence unfolded, it became crystal clear to the

minds of the jurors that the keynote was narcotics instead

of harboring a fugitive. It was the theory of the People

that the successful continuance of their chief prosecution

witness’ trafficking in narcetics would be used as a spring:

hoard to portray that-narcotics sired the plot to harbor.

When the People’s main witness, Joseph Basile, indicated

his willingness to cooperate with the prosecution officials,

it was readily observed that they had on their hands the

vile culprit) Basile really is. Next the prosecutor sought

, 5

out the persons named by Basile and made wiretap after

Wiretap of the aforesaid telephonic conversations (People’s

“Exhibits 7A to SA" inclusive, saqera) all or which was sub-

sequently used at the state trial of petitioner to convict

petitioner herein, The affidavit in opposition, verified by

assistant district attorney William Sonenshine, Msq., on

petitioner's application te fix bail pending certiorari, con

tained the fullowing statement by said prosecutor: .

“We go ane step further, Nowhere in the record it

self (which-encompassed TSO1 printed pages) was there

any evidence of Wiretapping.” (Bail denied, seu Ap-

pendix.) G

Of course, reference to these wiretaps may be found in

the Index of the printed Record. There is, was, and always

will be evidence of wiretapping in the instant case, notwith

standing the disclaimer of such wiretaps by the prosecutor.

|

Turning now to the violation of petitioner's right to coun

sel under the Sixth Amendment, we respectfully subinit that

an accused is entitled to the presenee and assistance of

counsel at every stage of the trial Tt was substantial error

to proceed with the trial in counsel's absem efor the peti

toner was thereby prejudiced, Counsel for petitioner at

the trial proceedings was Samuel Bonom, M<q. Atter a

short recess during the afternoon sesston on December 2rd.

1957, the trial was resumed. Assistant Distriet: Attornes

Kottler continued summing up to the jury on behalf of the

People. (See ff. 4924-4911, page TOUS including a colloqus

between other counsel, the prosecution @nd Court.) At

these proceedings, petitioner's trial counsel was absent,

The record is fortified when we consider the following re-

mark by counsel, folio 4916, page L639 of Record:

“Mr. Bonom: [have been asked by Mr. Alexander

to have his, of course, added to those that were made

vesterday to-all phases of the proceedings, aid add

“mine aswell.” (talies supplied.)

ARGUMENT.

CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE AN

IMPORTANT QUESTION AFFECTING WIRETAPPING

AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THE STATE COURTS

AND THE RIGHTS OF PETITIONER UNDER THE

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ARE INVOLVED. .

~The. wire-tapping evidence thus obtained was highly

prejudicial against petitioner in the course of his trial.

The New York State Court of Appeals has already passed

on this question and has ruled that even though this pros

e cedure might violate the Constitution of the United States

and the laws of the United States, still it would be admitted

in evidence in the New York Court.

It is, therefore, apparent that the issue is crystal-clear

and must now be resolved by the Supreme Court of the

United States.

In Nardone v. U.S. 302 U.S. 379, at page 383, the United

States Supreme Court stated as follows:

“The answer to the question ix one of policy. Con-_

cress may have thought it less impertant that some

offenders should go unwhipped of justice than that the

oficers should resort to methods, inconsistent. with

ethical standards-and destructive of personal liberty.”

From the foregoing, it is apparent that Congress set forth

difficult standards for the whole people of the United States,

including the people of the State of New York. There are

ho exceptions, ‘In the second Nardone ease, Nardone v.

(78., 508 U.S. 588, at page 341, the Supreme Court stated

is follows:

7

“The essence of a provision forbidding the acquisition

of evidence in a certain way is that merely the evidence

shal) not be used before -the Court, but that it shall

not be used at all. ,

“A decent respect for the poliey of Congress must

save us from imputing to it a self-defeating, if net

disingenuous purpose.”

This language cafnot be juoisinterpreted. Congress .in

passing ,605 of the Federal Communications Aet did not

intend to pass a law that was s¢/f-defeating. To permit the

State of New York, or any other state, under the guise of

evidentiary rules to violate this law with impunity would

amount to nullification or destruction of the “ethieal stand-

ards” establislied by Congress, as repre ‘sentatives of our

Federal Govermme ‘nt and all of its people.

Benantiv. €. 8... 355 U.S. 96, decked that state officers

acting sata: toa warrant of a state court were, never-

theless, guilty of violating “605 of the Federal Commiuniea-

tions Act if they tapped a telephone and’ divulged a con-

Versation, without the express permission of the’ sender.

Benanti went further and held, “that Congress setting

out a prohibition in plain terms, did not mean te allow state

legislation which would contradict that section and that

policy.”

In effect, Benanti stands for the proposition that “ne

persons”, as stated in G05 of the Federal Communications

Act, means exactly what it says and makes no exception,

whether that be State Police, Distrie, Attorney, or even

members of the Judiciary. ;

It must also be borne in mind that under our Federal

laws, anyone wife aids and abets in the violation of a federal

law becomes a principal and can be charged with that-erime.

Is this not a sad spectacle to observe police officers, district

fet

attorneys and even judges becoming participants to a crime

against the United States?) This would lead to disrespect

of our laws and our courts.

Benanti also stands for the proposition that the State

laws pertuitting wire-tapping are unconstitutional, in that

Congress “did not mean to allow state legislation which

would contradiet that-section and that pohey.”

It has often been said that ours is a “government of laws

and not men”, Yet, from the history of Section 605 of the

Federal Communications Act, there has never been a prose-

cution of any meinber of the Police Department or other

state official who violated this law. [t is common knowledge

that this section is being violated almost every day in New

York State. The agents of the Federal Government. in

charge of enforcing Federal laws are aware-of this, yet,

no one has ever been prosecuted. Could it. be that those

in charge of enforcing Federal laws do not approve of

this law? If that were so, then they are derelict in their

duties, as non-enforcement amounts to nullification of that

law by failure to enforce it. .

It has often been said that law is not static, but a living

organism that grows. to meet the challenge of changing

times.

Certiorari is sought on the grounds that the New York

State Court of Appeals has rendered a decision on an im-

portant question of Federal law in conflict with applicable

decisions and controlling case law; has decided an important

question of Federal law which should-be clarified and made

more definite and certain by this Court: has decided a Fed-

eral question of substance not therefore deternined by this

Court; has decided said question in a way probably not

in accord with the applicable decisions of this Court and:

with other Circuits; and or because of the iaportance of

9

the question for the administration of criminal justice in

the Federal Courts. :

Recently the United States Supreme’ Court. confirmed

the position in United States v. Benanti, supra, that the

New York statute and Constitutional provision that permits

Wiretapping is a violation of and in conflict with the para-

mount power of Congress in that field. The Congress of

the United States has. re ognized that the evil of wire.

tapping is an invasion of the privacy of persons, and thr it

it is an evil tor such an Invasion to exist.

Although the highest Court of the land has declared

the New York Law:conflicts with paramount Federal law,

nevertheless Wiretapping persists in New York State. Un.

doubtedly, those who engage in’ violating the Federal

statute do so because the Detore rule in New York -(Peo-

ple ¥. Defore, 242 N. ¥, a aiftra), as recently reaffirmed

With respect to wiretipping in People vy. Variano, 5 N. Y.02d

391, encourages the violation of Taw by law-enforcement

officers, for the Courts in New York will not pause to in-

quire into the manner evidence was obtained,

The search has therefore turned toward discovering a

remedy that will enforce compliance with Federal law. None

has effectively succeeded. Hoffman Vv. O'Brion, 8S F, Supp.

4903, Black veo Tmpelliterri, 201) Mise. S715 affirmed 21

A.D. 671; appeal dismissed, 305 N.Y. 724 (a taXpaver’s

detion against municipal officials to enjoin the use of public

funds for wiretap equipment and personnel); People v.

Variqno, supra, an attempt to exelude such evidence ina

criminal trial, whieh if successful would have been some

Ineans of discouraging w Irctapping, although it wonld lave

left open the use of secret it, terce pilates to vain le ads.

The present petition for certiorari is brought with that

backfround. The paramount Federal law is openly douted

=

10

under the dubious authority of State law, yet.no remedy

exists to.stop it. [tis worth no more than mention that the

‘federal provision for prosecution of violators and actions

for damages are illusory. |

‘Therefore, the present petition for certiorari presents

a feasible solution for at least preventing the use of the —

evidence in a State trial against the person whose privacy

had been illegally invaded. Although it will not stop unlaw-

ful wiretapping as a community problem, it will serve to.

discdurage its rampant use. An aroused judiciary with full

knowledge that federal law is violated should be inspired

to take every measure to vindicate federal law.

The only argument that might be urged against the exer-

cise of power by this federal court is that the federal sys-

tem requires difidence by federal courts (for example,

Ste fanelliv. Minard, 342 U.S. 117). But is this the answer?

Must the federal courts back away from enforcing its own

laws because the State was involved in a trial at which

illegal wiretaps were introduced? Suppose the federal gov-

ermpent had prosecuted a State official for violating the

iederal law against wiretapping in tliis case, wouldn't this

bea “disrespect” of “the proper balance between the States

and the federal government in law enforcement’? Indeed,

“teh prosecution at this very stage, at this very date, Would

be as inuch intrusion by the federal government as would

bean injgunetion. Yet no one would argue that such prosecu.

tiorteould not lie, See, Ka parie Royall, WT US. 241, 231;

Boske v, Comingore, 17 U.S. 459. Fi

If the objection is interference With State prosecutions,

the answer is that there is no mere interference with State

sovereignty befere atrial than it is after a trial, such as

)

Wostrated by a habeas corpus proceeding to review State

action, as Tound in Leyra vy. Denno, 847 U8. 5560 At least,

11 ;

the federal Judge is enforcing federal law which happens te

he paramount in this ease. The enforcement of the para-

meunt Lew should take precedence irrespective of the.

niceties whteh wo with formalities. Jurisdiction eam be sup

ported on the brostder weetth) nd that the Tederal courts have

power fo enforce paraiuioornt federal law; and that all other

eonsoderations ate secondary. Bur porte Royall, supra;

Reavy, Cited Stats, DOV S WZ) where a federal offieer

Was is ied fromm using wiretap es Wdenee in a State prose.

cution.

Until recently, the several states were clearly w-ethin

their vights if they chose te permit their law enforeement

offcers to make use of wiretapping evidence in obtaining

onvietions. Within the limits of the. Fourteenth Amend.

tent the states alone have the authority to regulate police

matters and foouulate roles of evidence for their eourts

(Schwart: v. Te ras, 8444 U.S A) (Toy; Ruchin ve Cali-:

reprint. O42, S. 1 cir: iW WON, Colorads, B38 UL St 25

(TU40): Palko ¥. Connes TR Le ae SSI CIIST) s Taeining

Ve Mew derseg, 211 US. Tso dos): People v. Detore, 242°

». Sb Cae. I asa M1026), cert, denied, 270 U.S. 657

sates New York by constitational amendment in 1438

Mirdinteed the privacy of wire coltuinications, but pro-

Vi es for intereept tons by prerlite offieers Where aneu part

court order hat been obtained for the Prey prerse, PAs

Const. art. be 12. 2.) Thereafter, the legislature peres-

Vide a procedure for obtaining the court orders oN Y¥-

Code Crim. Proe. S1-a). and made it aemisdemenanor for

an individnal fo Posséss Wiretapping eauiprient with the

intention of using it for unauthorized wiret aps (N.Y,

Venal Law S52¢a)). 4 4

The decision of the United States Supreme Court) in

Benantive United States, Hepa, places the Wiretapping stat-

Utes of the several states under a cloud. “The Supreme,

12

Court reversed, holding that section 605 of the Federal

Communications Aet which states,

"2... [NJo person not being authorized by the

vender shali intercept any communication and divulge

or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport,

effect or meaning of such intercepted communication

”

to any person.

precludes the use in a federal prosecution of wiretap

evidence even where obtained .by state’ officers) pursuant

to state law. Going further, the Court said in’ reference

to the New York provisions for police wiretapping “Con-

cress... did not mean to allow state legislation which would

contradict that seetion and that poliey.”) (355 U.S. at 105.)

‘Taken on its-face, this would seem to bar state legislation

that goes beyond the federal statute (U.S. Const. art. VE,

el. 2).- : . ,

It was this consideration that led Justice Hofstadter of

the New York Supreme Court to refuse to entertain any

further applications for wiretap orders under (813-a of the

New York Code‘of Criminal Procedure (Matter of Intescep-

tion at Telephone Communications, 170 N.Y. S. 2d 84, 9

Mise. 2d 121 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 195s).

Noconvietion is so important tata reviewing Court will

Countemanee ao trial permented with substantial federal

cuestions and-errors te which “petitioner was subjeeted

below. The Tecord consists of three volumes, thus an

appendix is submitted herewith in leu thereol,

Apropos to add that the sane Appellate Division reversed

a convietion for permitting the adinission into evidence of

wiretap records and transcripts which took place after the

commission Of the erime fer which two men were indicted.

(See People vw Mulsen aid Webcr, New York. Law Journal,

July 21. 1860, paee 7, colina 1.) :

13

a

Il.

- CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE AN

IMPORTANT QUESTION AFFECTING VIOLATION OF

THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL UNDER THE FOURTEENTH

AMENDMENT IS INVOLVED, | se

In the absence of waiver af the right to counsel, petitioner

isentitled to the presence and assistance of retained counse!

at every step and stage of the trial See 23 C)0S, 6 969.

980, U.S.C) AL Const. Amend. 6. Thus, it has been held

to he error for the Court, in the absence of counsel, to pro-

ceed with the trial unless proper diligence was used to have

counsel present. Mumann v. Rivera, 71 N.Y. 2d 321,

O72 App. Div. 352: (856 Code €. Proce, N.Y. It was the

distriet attorney's duty to call Court's. attention to. the

absence of petitioner's retained counsel when the prosecutor

summed up to the jury in behalf of the People. Common-

wealth vy. Jester, WON, 993, 256 Pa. 441, reversing 63+ Pa,

Super. 21 A failure by petitioner te object was held not

tobe a waiver. US. vu. Simones. ACN. Y.. 205 F. 2d 480.

During the prosecutor's summation, his statements to the

Jury were of a highly inthimimnatory nature andaseriously

prejudicial to petitioner. At the conclusion of the summa.

tion, counsel for the co-defendants strenuously objected to

this suinmation and esked for mistrials for their clients,

Counsel for petitioner was ubsent and the record is devoid

efany objection made hy any other counsel in petitioner's

Tite Court. in the JUPY’s presence at that time (if,

FHOT-$902 > nace 1654) erroneously stated that petitioner

behalf,

Was accused of being an stecessory to the erime- of “violation

of the’ narcoties law." The Court there further misstated:

that petitioner was aceused of being an decessory to the

crime of “violation of the narcoties law."

The prosecutor intermittently dangled the narcoties, he-

longing to the Peopie’s star witness, before the eves of the

; 14

jury during the course of his summation, The prosecutor

opened People’s E xhibit. One, consisting of Joseph Basile’s

narcotics, and remarked that petitioner and co-defendants

are tarred with the same narcotics. DPetitioner, was com-

‘pelled to sit idly by while the district attorney employed

other misteading and inflammatory devices to destroy peti-

tioner’s credibility in his ‘successful attempt to obtain a_

conviction, Had counsel for petitioner been present at the

colloguy subsequent to. the prosecutor's summdtion and |

prior thereto, appropriate objection and timely exception

could have been made which may have prevented the ad-

verse findings and the rendition of judgment. The prejudice

resulting from the absence of counsel in the instant: case

constituted reversible error. Absence of counsel at any

“stage is as serious a reflection on the standards and dis-

vipline of the Court a@ it is on the character and attitude

of the attorney concerned.

Qne line of decisions holds that counsel must be present

at every stage, and deems it error when the Court proceeds

Without counsel. State v. Beeny, 115 Ctah 168, 203 P. 2d 897

(1949), judge failed to reinstruet jury because of counsel's

hbsence; State ve. Davenport, 33 La. Ann. 231 (1881), judge

charged jury in‘absence of counsel ; Lee vy. State, 244 Ala.

401, 18 So. 2d 590 (1943), counse! PBL, at verdict; (". S.

ex rel, orietd . Ragen, D.C. LL, 60 FL Supp. 820; Wagner

JUS. CLA, Ala. 17% FL 2d 354. cert. den. 69 S, Ct. 1499;

Petition of Ellison, D.C. Pex., 140 FL Supp. 720, affd..

C, As 2359 Ik. 2d 175.

That petitioner's constitutional rights under the Four-

teenth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment were violated.

The latter ‘Amendment provides, in part:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy

the right... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his

defense.”

15

CONCLUSION -

_ THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI SHOULD BE

GRANTE v FOR THE REASONS RELIED ON HEREIN.

BEFORE.

Dated: July 21, 1960,

Respectfully submitted,

Frances Kany

Member of the Bar

of the Supreme Court

of the United States

-lttorney for Petitioner

401 Broadway

New York 13, New York

17

APPENDIX

Judgment 2

At a term) of the County Court, held in and for

‘the County of Kings, at 120 Schermerhorn

Street, in the Borough of Brooklyn, City of

New York, on the 11th day of February,

1958. roe %

Present: .

Hon. Georce J. Joyce,

County Judge.

Indictment 1445/1957

—

Tue Peorte or THE State oF New York,

—against— — eat

Thomas AKEL

Alias “Brooklyn Tommy”

Alias “Brooklyn Kid”

. pon 5 ad e

Alias “Thomas Dorio

elie

Indicted for Accessory to a Felony, Section 2 of the

Penal Law, and convicted thereof as charged by the ver-

. . ee

dict of a jury. os

Being personally present and sworn says:

My true name is Thomas Akel;,] am 22 years of age.

I was born in New York City; I reside at 161 State St.,

B’klyn; I am a salesman; J am not m&rried, I can read

and write, I have an Sth grade elementary school educa-

.

is

tion; I am a Catholie regular attendant: my parents are

dead; I am temperate. I have previously been convicted

of two misdemeanors ; | do not use drugs..

Being asked and he having nothing to say why the judg-

ment of the law should not be pronounced against him,

the Court prenounced J udgment as follows:

Whereupon, it is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Court,

that the said Thomas Akel, alias “Brooklyn Tommy”, alias

“Brooklyn Kid” alias "Thomas Dorio” for the felony afore-

said whereof he is convieted be imprisoned in the Sing Sing

State Prison at Ossining, N. Y., at hard labor, under an

indeterminate sentence, the maximum of such imprisonment

to be five (5) years and the minimum thereof two (2) years

and six (6) months.

A True Extract’ from the Minutes

JosEPH B. Witty

Ch rk

19

Appellate Division Opinion

(193 8. ¥.S. 2d 95)

.

a

.

Prope or THE Stare or New Yorn,

Respondent,

—_—V—

Tomas Aner alias *Baookiys Tomay,”

alias “DrookLyN Kip.” alias “Tiromas Doro,”

. Appeltant.

>

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Nov. 16, 1999.

-

. . . . .

e

Mowakp HH. Levine, New York, City, for appellant Akel.

Vernon C, Rossxen, New York City, of counsel,

Kpwarp S, Sinver, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn, for respondent,

WiLtiaM Soxensuine, Brooklyn, of counsel,

Before: >

Notas, Po/., and

Wenzer, Becvock, Mereuy and onic dale

ie oN

\

Appeal from a judgment: of the County Court, Kings

County, rendered February 11, 1958. senténeing: a pellant

to serve from 2h to Jveags, after he had been found guilty

bya jury of being an ACCESSOPY toa felony (Pengl Lew, $2).

The potice of appeal states that appeal is alsa ae

MeMoraNpUM BY THE Court

20

“all of the objections, exceptions and motions mage during

the trial, after trial, and from all intermedtate orders made

in this matter.”

Judgment unanimously affirmed. See People vy. Maimone,

App. Div., 193 N. Y. S. 2d 90. 5 7

No separate appeal lies from the objections, the excep-

tions or the intermediate orders, which have been reviewed

on the appeal from the judginent of conviction.

y

21

‘ emeleas Division Opinion a

(13 NL YLS. 2d 90) 7

. a

Provii or tHe Stare or New York!

R spondent,

. —v.—

SAVERIO Marios : ei “Satvatonke Marvone,”

alias “Sippir.”

’ ' i Appellant.

<>

Suprenie Coat, Appellate Division, Seeond Department.

> Now. 16, 1959,

«

Eowsanp HH. Levine. New York City: Vernon C. Rossxer,

New York Cnty, Of ferent , fol cpp lent Marmone

. ’ . e ° .

Kowarp S. Sinven, Dist. Atty... Winuiam Soxessuixe,

Brookls Bh, 60>) fC rebhaest 2 ar) a spoude nt.

Be fo re -

Nonas, 2?.7.. and

Weszer, Beroock, Meneuy and Uanerra, J.

Mimorann M BY THE Court

Appeal-from a judgment of the County -Court, Kings

County, rendered Apri#t 22. 1958. sentencing appellant to

serve from ll. too vears, after he lad been found guilty

uy at jury of being an aceessory toa felony (Penal Law. (2).

Judgtuent unanimeusty affirmed

>»)

(1-3) Appellant, Thomas: Akel, Salvatore Giordano,

Robert Douglas Williams and five others were indicted tor

heing accessories to a felony, (Penal Law, 2) in that,

after one Basile had committed the felony of unlawfully

* possessing narcotic drugs, appellant and his codefendants,

acting in concert and aiding and abetting each other and

pursuant to a common plan or scheme, harbored, conce aled

and aided Basile with intent that he might avoid and escape

from arrest, trial, convietion and punishment, with knowl-

edge and reasonable grounds to believe that Basile had

committed said felony. Under the charge of the court, to

Which there was no exception and \ hich thus was the law

of the case, the gvidence was sufficient to justify the finding.

implicit in the jury's verdict that Basile, the principal wit-

ness against appellant and lis codefendants, Was not an ac-

complice. His testimony, therefore, did. not require cor-

roboration as provided. by section 399 of the Vode of Crim-

inal Procedure and the proof was sufficient to sustain the

verdict. ; :

(4-6) Considerable evidence was received, as to trans-

aetions between Basile and the defendants other than ap-

pellant, involving the illegal possession and sale of nar-

coties. There was no claim that appellant teek any part in

such transactions or even had any knowledge of them. This

evidence was properly received as'against those defendant-

‘who were directly connected with these transactions, even

though such transactions had no relation to the felony as to

which such defendants were accused of being accessories,

sinee it tended to establish as against them that they were

busily engaged with Basile in the traffié in nare oties and had

a motive for aiding him to escape capture and prosecution

for the original felony which he had committed, so that their

business relations with him might continue (cf. People v.

Molineux. 168 N. ¥, 264, 294, 61 N. K. 286, 295, 62 L. R.A.

193, People v. Fitzgerald, 106 N.Y. 208, DU N. EB. 846) and

a See

»

23 °

also tended to establish the means by which they aided Basile

to remain at large. Tt was for the jury to determine, under

the charge of the court, to which there was ne exeeption,

whether this evidence could be*considered against sppel-

lant as proof of a continuing conspiracy, originated by ap-

— and others, to harbor and aid Basile, even though

appellant did net know, of all of the details of the acts

auesiiea during the conspiracy, or the identity of all of

lis sore ak ty Moreover, tuost of the evidence now

complained of was admitted without objection, and, al-

though some. eae anid irrelevant evidence as to the

' details of the nareoties tr allie Was improperly admitted over

objection, it Was'ne mere prejudicial to appellant’= rights

than the other evidence to which no objection was made.

It was not error, under the circumstances here disclosed,

to refuse to accept the concession tendered by appellant and

acodefendant, that Basile had committed the fe lony charged

nthe indictment and to permit proof thereot by the People.

The record does not clearly dxtablish that the concession

was offered’on behalf of all defendants, and in any event

appelfant appears to have acquiesced in the trial court's rul-

ing. The concession was offered only for the purpose of sav-

Ing tine, and no objection was made to proof that Basile

had committed the felony, on the grounds that it: was iM

lnaterial and unnecessary in view of the concession. Com,

liwnts by the prosecutor in summing up that Basile’s testi-

mony Was uncontradicted and Unimpeache ‘d Were improper,

‘nee much of that testimony could not have been contra-

dieted unless appellant had testified in his own defense (ef,

People v. Watson, 216 N.Y. 565, 111 N. EL 243: People y

Forte, 277 N.Y. 430, 14 N. E. 2 783: pole, v. Fitzgerald,

1G: NON Sa a Bae. supra; People vy. Minkowitz,

220. N.Y. 399, 115 NE. OST). However, the trial court cor.

rectly and satisfactorily charged the provisions of seetion

ate of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That being se, it is

24 oe

our opinion, although we do not condone the prosecutor's

conduct, that reversal is not required, in view of the fact

that appellant’s guilt was clearly established (People +.

Watson, supra, 216 N.Y. at: pages 569-570, 111 N. BE. at

pages 244-245; People y. Priori, 164 NX. Y. 459, O85 N. E.

66S; Code Crim. Proe. 42).

25

Court of Appeals (No Opinion)

(¢ N. ¥. 2d 998, 199 N.Y. S. 2d 510)

- =

PEOPLE, ete.,

Re spondent,

—

Tuomas AKEL. ete..

. - Appellant.

Propie v.? Mammone

~-

Court of Appyals of New York.

"March 24, 1960

Appeal fronr Supreme Court, Appellate Division, . See-

ond Department, 9 A.D. 2d Ts0, 1938 N.Y. S. 2d 90, 94, 95:

9 A. D. 2d 781.

®

Defendants were charged by indictment with being ae-

cesseries to a felony in that after felonious possession of

hareotics by nareoties Peddler, the defendants, acting in

concert, and aiding and abetting each other, harbored,

concealed, and aided narcotics peddler wath intent that he

might avoid and escape argest, trial, conviction and pun

ishinent. : ; {

The defendants were convicted Under Seetion 2 of the

Penal Law, Consol. Laws, «. 40. of being accessories te a

felony!’ The County Court, Nings County, Jovee, Jo. en-

tered judgment, and the defendants appealed.

The Appellate Division aftirmed the judgment. .

The defendants appealed te the Court of Appeals. The

defendant Akel contended in the ‘Court of Appeals -that

”

26

a

the People failed as a. matter of law to prove each and

every essential element of the offense of being an ae

cessory to a felony, and that evidence adduced failed te

controvert defendant's prestmption of innocence hevond

a reasonable doubt, and that defendant failed to receive

a fair an impartial trial guaranteed by Seetion 6 toi

Article 1 of the state ( ‘onstitution. The defendant Gior

dano one if the Court of “Appe: us that the Counts

Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indie

ment and in denying his motion for a directed) verdict,

and that admission of evidence of crimes not ee

the indietment denied him a fair trial in violation of

due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. te the

federal Constitution, and. that .erroneots rulings of the

County Court denied him a fair trial, and that allegedly

unfair comment and allege diy unfair trial tactics of the

proseentor denied hin a fair trial, and that ‘is motion for

new trial should have been granted. T he defendant Williams

contended in the Court-of Appeals that the County Court

erred in failing to direct a ‘verdict of acquittal for hyn.

and that evidence was insufficient. to support jury *s find.

ing that he was part of a single continuing cons piracy, and

that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a flr:

trial. The defendant Maimone contended in the Court et

"Appeals that he was dey rived of a fair trial by the ad

mission of highly .pre judicial ep inflammatory detatis

concerning the narcotics traffic and by the prosecutor's

remarks, and that the evidenee was instificient te saistain

the conviction, and that narcotics peddler was ‘an decom:

splice asa matter of law and that County: Court) shenld

have so ruled. t

Judgements afiitmed.

All coneur.

Extracts of Wiretap Testimony in Kings County Court

(ff. 3056-307 4)

Mr. Kern: May T then take iy exception for the record?

The Court: The rulings will be the same.

Mr. Bonom: And the same exe eption as Tar as the defen-

dant Akel is concerned. ° ‘ -

The Court: Phave an Exhibit 7 for identification ‘and TAY

Hotes show it is a tape recording, Sacramento 2-7421, ‘Phat

is all T have here. That is all | was told at the time it Wis

offered. . ¥

Mr. Kottler: That's right.

The Court: What are vou talking about 7A or 7B?

Mr. Kottler: Well, at this time [Po offered in evidence it

transcript of a conversation on that tape which Isa fer

identification.

The Court: Yes.

Mr. Kottler: And pursuant to stipulation between the

prosecutor and the counsel for the defendants, we have

. agreed. that these conversations are to wo inte oy idence and

the first conversation to go in is the one, the copy of which

Was just handed to vour Honor.

The Court: And vou are calling that 7A.

Mr. Kottler: TA in evidence.

The Court: Al right.

Mr. Kottler: Whieh is a conversation held between June

=. 196 and June 4. 1956, on that teléphone number between

the defendant Sain Barone and the wife of ‘defendant -

Giordano.

The Court: All mght.

(Transcript of conversation between Sam Barone are

Mrs. Giordano marked People's Exhibit 7A. in evidence, )

v

: 28

Mr. Kotyler: Lit. the record also show that we prepared

mimeographed copies which are exact of this transeript

Which | have been handing to the jury.

The Court: That's right, and the attorneys. :

Mr. Kottler: And the attorneys for the defendants.

, a |

(Exhibit 74 played, as follows:

“Incoming call MO (Sam) to Fl (Joan)

“FI Hello,

“MO Hello is Jimmy there?

“FIT No who is this? .

* “MO This is er—Sam you know (inaudible. )

“FL Sam who?

“MO Sam, vou know Sam.

*FLOh Sam. '

“MO Yea.

“FI Ah of course dear, you were supposed to see hit

or something.

“MO Yea,

“FI Tonight?

"MO Yea.

MET Because he told ine he wasn't coming right home,

He must have meant he was going to meet vou.

“MO Well if he “calls vou, tell him PH be there in

- about an hour.

“FT That you won't-be there until an hour?

“MOTH he there in about an hour, 1 mean...

“FY You mean you'll be there, vou're there now?

“MO No, Pve ..

“FL Oh DT see, vou won't be there until anchour, |

see and he knows everything, huh.

“MO Yea, he knows where.

“FL Now look dear, if he doesn't eS

“MO Well then, he must be there. .

i

. o

=

ef 29

(Exhibit TA continued to be plaved:

“FLO alright, so if not vou call in the morning, eh.

“MO No, I've got to call, ve got to see him tonight.

“Fl Alright dear, then he'll be...

“MO T've got to see him as soon as possible,

“FI Alright then, [m= quite positive he must. be

there,

“MO Okay. | ? : eis

“FI See beeause .

“MO If he calls you, tell himethat I'll be there.

“FIT If he calls you, I’ Ul tel] hina you'll be there in an

hour.

“MO Yea.

“FIT Alright dear.

“MO Okay.

“FI Bye bye.

“MO Bye bye.

-

(Exhibit 7A was played to the jury.)

Mr. Kottler: At this time, if the Court pleases, pursuant

to stipulation, and with regard to the same Exhibit 7 i for

identification; | offer in evidence a conversation from that

( . extitlut which took place between June 2 1956 and June 4,

Moi, between Joe Basile andthe wife of defendant Gior.

dano, on that telephont number Sacramenta 2— hatever

that number is, : |

The Court: 7421.

Mr. Kottler: 7421. This is 7B in evidenee.

(Conversation between Joe Basile and Mrs. (Ciierdane

marked People’s exhibit iB in ey iderreg: )

Mr. Cooperman: TPomerely want te state that ir may

“ipulation PT consented that these conversations were hele

30

between the parties set forth in this exhibit. That is all

lL am eonceding. |

The Court: Without conceding the truth of it.

Mr. Cooperman: [| am also not conceding it is: bindiny

on my defendant.

Mr. Kottler: But you are conceding Joan is the wife of

the defendant Giordano.

Mr. Cooperman: That’s right. That's all I concede,

(Tape recording played back.)

Mr. Kottler: I think the. recor! should show that. th)

transcript seems to be inaccurate in that the two words,

“Hello, hello,” Aare’ missing at the very beginning of it.

| now offer in evidence as People’s Exhibit (Cla tran-

script of a conversation on the tape which is People’s Ey-

- hibit 7 for identification, And this conversation took place

between June 2nd and June 4, 1956, between the defendam

Barone and the wife of defendant Giordano.

lL ask that this be marked 7C in evidence.

(Conversation between Barone and Mrs. Giordano

marked People's Exhibit 7C in evidence. )

(Tape recording played back :)

Mr. Cooperman: Now, if the Court pleases, my client

informs me in hearing this telephone conversation, alleged

telephone conversation, that the party on the wire being

‘the "Female In,” is not his wife, Joan. a

The Court: All right. We will come to that in time,

maybe,

Mr. Kottler: [now offer in evidence also with regard to

People’s Exhibit ¢ for identitfieation, a transeript of a eet

versation on that reel between defendant Barone and the

31

defendant Giordano, on Sac ‘ramento 2-7421, between June

, 1956 and June 4, 195 %, and | ask that this be marked

People's Exhibit 7D in evidence.

(Transcript of conversation het wee ‘nm Barone and Gior-

dano marked People’s Exhibit 7D in ev idence.)

Mr. Kottler: That's between Joan and Giordano.

. {Tape recording played back. )

Mr. Kottler: Now, with regard to: People’s: Exhibit. §

for identification, 1 offer inte evidence a transcript of ¢

conversation on that reel, Pe ‘ople’s Exhibit S for identifiea.

tion between the witness Basile and the wife of the defen.

dant Giordano, and | ask that it be marked Péople's tuxhibit

SA in evidence.

(Transcript of conversation between Basile and Mrs.

Giordano marked People’s Exhibit SA in evidence, )

Mr. Cooperman : Again, if the court Pleaxes,smay | note

for the record that all we conceded was that suc ‘hy conversa-

tion did take place, on the telephone: that any conversation

With the wife of the de ‘fendant: is not binding on the defen-

dant Giordano,

The Court: Denied.

Mr. Cooperman: Exception.

(People’s Exhibit SA in evidence plaved back. )

*

Extract of Statement Taken of Anthony. DeGesaro .:

Received in Evidence and Marked

' “People’s Exhibit 35”

“Q. What is your mane? A.. Anthony DeGesaro.

‘*Q. Did you receive a plone call from New York this

week? A. Yes.

“Q. Can yg describe that phone eall?: A. A person

called. od 3

“QoWhat was that person, a man ora woman? A.

To me it sounded like a woman's voice. She, said she

was Joe’s sister. |

“Q. By doe, whom did you consider that to mean!

A. Joe Dedohn, that is the name I knew him by which

later turned out to be art alias.

“Q. Did you subsequently learn him to be Joe Basile?

A. Yes. 7 ;

“Q. How did you find that wut? A. From the news-

papers.

“Q. How many phene calls did you get from New

York this week? A. Two or three.

“Q. Was it two or was it three? A. I don't know.

It could have been two or it could have been three,

but I think it was closer to three.

Al] from the same person? A. Supposed to be,

it sounded like the same person.

“Q. As a result of these conversations, did you go

to the Albany:Sehnectady Airport teday?) A, Yes, sir.

“Q. What happened then? A. Some fellow showed

tne a badge and said go against the wall and ther he

cheeked me to see if Twas carrfing any weapons and

firearms.

“®. Did he then take ven to this office? A. Yes,

“Q. That is, the Distriet Attorney's office? AL Yes.”

|

.

.

33

Extract of Statement of Sam Barone Received in

Evidence and Marked “People’s Exhibit 36”

“Q. What is your name? A. Salvatore Barone:

“Q. Do you know Anthony DeGesaro? A. Yes.

“Q. Did you see or speak to DeGesaro on Mon

night, June 17th, 1957? A. Yes, I did.

“Q. What conversation did you have with-him? A.

Nothing, just about a phone call that

York. ;

“Q. What phone call did he say he got from New

York? A. Said he got a plone call from Joe Basile's.

sister. “ :

“Q. What was said? A. She asked him for the

clothes so T told him when she calls bac

come up and get them.”

lay

l got from New

k for him to

ot

Memorandum by Mr. Justice Frankfurter

R >

Tiromas AKEL,

PP: trtiar er.

—V,—

ht

State or New York.

.Os Morton ror Bat

This is a motion to fix bail pend « a petition for cer

tiorart to be filed seeking review of a judgment of convic

Jon affirmed in the Court of Appeals of New York on

‘arch 24, 1960. ; ,

When a judge as solicttous as is Judge Stanley H. Fuld

to safeguard the interests of defendants in eriminal ease

deMes an application for bail pending a proposed petition

for certiorari to this Court on a claim of a substantia!

federal right, one naturally attributes some selid) ground

for such denial. To me this is found in the opposing affi

davit in whieh it is deposed that at ne time in the COMPS

of this prosecution was a elaim of a federal mature mad: .

that the New York Court of Appeals did not certife thar

ans federal question was presented to it, and that, altho!

ifirmance of the judgment of conviction was rendered

on Mareh 24 last, the remittitur below has not heen ainencded

soas to slow that.in faet a federal claim was considered

ane rejected hy the New York Court of Appeals. While thie

petition for admission to bail claims that a federal lies

hen is te be raised by a proposed petition for vertiorari,

itdoes not allege that such ad federal question had been,

raised betore the New York Court of Appeals and wa-

30

there denied. Nor is there any claim that the remittitur

Was amended so as to set forth that the Court of Appeals

did in fact pass on the federal claim. Nor does the memo-

randum of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction,

7 N.Y, 2d 998, 999,

in setting forth the arguments made

by defendant Akel in that court, include the claith of a

federal right. +

In this state of the record before me dam compelled to

deny bail pending the filing of a petition for certiorari,

Fevix Fraxkrurrer

Assoriate Justice,

Supreme Court of the United States

July 19, 1960

.

”