United States v. Benjamin Franklin Wright, 568 F.2d 142 (9th Cir. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Benjamin Franklin Wright, 568 F.2d 142 (9th Cir. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Beebe v. State of Alaska (akd, 2021-12-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Beebe v. State of Alaska
D. Alaska · 2021 · confidence medium
Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 United States v. Wright, 568 F.2d 142, 143 (9th Cir. 1978) (“The Supreme Court [in Faretta v. California] did not extend the sixth amendment to encompass the right to be represented before the bar of a court by a layman.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) G and G Productions LLC v. Rita Rusic
9th Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
After all, we have emphasized that it “is the duty of counsel to assist the court, as well as the client.” United States v. Wright, 568 F.2d 142, 143 (9th Cir. 1978) (emphasis added); see also Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct Preamble (2018) (reinforcing that a lawyer is “an officer of the legal system” with a “special responsibility for the quality of justice”).
examined Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jennifer French (4×)
9th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
The dissent also rightly points out that the Sixth Amendment “affords the right of self-representation,” but not a right to “lay representation.” See United States v. Wright, 568 F.2d 142, 143 (9th Cir. 1978) (citing cases).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Larry A. Turnbull
9th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
United States v. Wright, 568 F.2d 142, 143 (9th Cir.1978).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Moody v. Smith (In Re Moody)
S.D. Tex. · 1989 · confidence medium
U.S. v. Wright, 568 F.2d 142, 143 (9th Cir.1978); U.S. v. Cooper, 493 F.2d 473 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 859 , 95 S.Ct. 108 , 42 L.Ed.2d 93 (1974). 7.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of Seattle v. Ratliff
Wash. · 1983 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Herrera-Venegas v. Sanchez-Rivera, 681 F.2d 41, 42 (1st Cir. 1982) (prison inmates may not be represented by fellow inmates); United States v. Taylor, 569 F.2d 448, 450-51 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 952 (1978) (defendant has no right to be represented by disbarred attorney); United States v. Wright, 568 F.2d 142, 143 (9th Cir. 1978) and cases cited therein (no right to lay representation).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Robert Edward Menke
9th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Wright, 568 F.2d 142, 143 (9th Cir.1978). 7 Menke's contention that the felon in possession of a firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1), is an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause also lacks merit because the government established that the firearm had been, at some time, in interstate commerce.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Barry J. Hoffman (2×)
9th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
Taylor v. Montgomery, 539 F.2d 715 (7th Cir.1976) (without opinion) & Pilla v. American Bar Association, 542 F.2d 56 (8th Cir.1976); see United States v. Wright, 568 F.2d 142, 142-43 (9th Cir.1978); United States v. Kelley, 539 F.2d 1199, 1203 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 963 , 97 S.Ct. 393 , 50 L.Ed.2d 332 (1976).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Milda Rita Johnson v. State
Tex. App. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Id. at 640 ; see also United States v. Wright , 568 F.2d 142, 143 (9th Cir. 1978) (plainly stating defendants have no constitutional right to be represented by layman).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Benjamin Franklin WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant
77-2055.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jan 23, 1978.
568 F.2d 142
Benjamin Franklin Wright, pro se., Jonathan David Rapore, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal, for plaintiff-appellee.
Hufstedler, Sneed, Kennedy.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
KENNEDY, Circuit Judge:

Benjamin Franklin Wright was convicted by a jury on a three-count indictment for violating sections 7203 and 7205 of the Internal Revenue Code (failure to file tax return and supplying an employer with a fraudulent withholding exemption certificate, respectively). Before the trial commenced Wright requested that he be represented by a person who was not a member of any bar. The judge advised appellant that he had a right to be represented by an attorney of his choice or to represent himself if he chose, but that he could not be represented by a person who was not a qualified attorney admitted to practice. The right to have counsel appointed by the court in the event the defendant could not afford an attorney was carefully explained. Appellant elected to act as his own counsel.

On appeal Wright claims that the refusal to permit representation by an unlicensed person whom he designated was a denial of the right to assistance of counsel. We disagree. The sixth amendment’s guarantee of the right of counsel does not require that one who is not an attorney be permitted to act, or try to act, as counsel. Whether a district court may in its discretion permit a nonattorney to act as counsel is not before us.

[*143] Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), holds that the sixth amendment affords the right of self-representation, not'lay representation. The Supreme Court, in stating that the history of the right to counsel included the seeking of advice from friends, 422 U.S. at 820 n.16, 95 S.Ct. at 2534, did not extend the sixth amendment to encompass the right to be represented before the bar of a court by a layman. Each circuit which has considered the question has held there is no right to representation by persons who are not qualified attorneys. E. g., United States v. Grismore, 546 F.2d 844 (10th Cir. 1976); United States v. Whitesel, 543 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 967, 97 S.Ct. 2924, 53 L.Ed.2d 1062 (1977); Pilla v. American Bar Association, 542 F.2d 56 (8th Cir. 1976), aff’g 407 F.Supp. 451 (D.Minn.1975); United States v. Jordan, 508 F.2d 750 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 842, 96 S.Ct. 76, 46 L.Ed.2d 62 (1975); United States v. Cooper, 493 F.2d 473 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 859, 95 S.Ct. 108, 42 L.Ed.2d 93 (1974); see United States v. Scott, 521 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1975) (dicta), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 955, 96 S.Ct. 1431, 47 L.Ed.2d 361 (1976).

It is the duty of counsel to assist the court, as well as the client. Representation by skilled lawyers is necessary if our complex, highly refined judicial process is to be fair and efficient. The appointment of nonlawyers as a matter of right would obstruct these objectives, not further them. We would not serve the ends of justice either in this case or in the judicial system generally by adopting the frivolous procedural device of permitting laymen to replace counsel as a matter of right. Nothing in the language or the history of the sixth amendment to the Constitution would justify that rule. The privilege to dispense with the constitutional right to the assistance of counsel should not be converted into the affirmative right to demand that a layman try the case.

Appellant’s further contention that he was denied a trial by an impartial jury when the district judge instructed the jurors that they must follow his explanation of the law is wholly without merit.

The judgment of conviction on three counts is AFFIRMED.