The appellant, a person with a long criminal record, was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen goods. At the trial the attorney appointed by the court to represent him presumably had enough time to prepare a defense but conducted it in a slipshod manner. He failed to object to the admission of important evidence not legally admissible; he failed to see that a witness whom the accused described as important was subpoenaed into court; he objected to none of the prejudicial statements of the trial judge which in effect attacked the credibility of the accused, and he criticized his own client before the jury. Held, a fair trial consistent with due process of law requires that the accused have more than the perfunctory representation by counsel shown by this case. Wilson v. State, (Ind. 1943) 51 N. E. (2d) 848.
Robert M. Barton,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-RIGHT TO COUNSEL,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol42/iss6/13