18 U.S.C. § 3005
Counsel and witnesses in capital cases
Whoever is indicted for treason or other capital crime shall be allowed to make his full defense by counsel; and the court before which the defendant is to be tried, or a judge thereof, shall promptly, upon the defendant’s request, assign 2 such counsel, of whom at least 1 shall be learned in the law applicable to capital cases, and who shall have free access to the accused at all reasonable hours. In assigning counsel under this section, the court shall consider the recommendation of the Federal Public Defender organization, or, if no such organization exists in the district, of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The defendant shall be allowed, in his defense to make any proof that he can produce by lawful witnesses, and shall have the like process of the court to compel his witnesses to appear at his trial, as is usually granted to compel witnesses to appear on behalf of the prosecution.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 136
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1959–2026 · leading case: United States v. Gary Dean Boone, 245 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2001).
United States v. Gary Dean Boone, 245 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2001). “OPINION WIDENER, Circuit Judge: Gary Dean Boone (Boone) appeals the district court’s failure to appoint a second lawyer to represent him under 18 U.S.C. § 3005 (2000) in his trial for violating 18 *355 U.”
Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989). “118 , presently codified as amended at 18 U. S. C. § 3005 (emphasis added). Thus, when Congress enacted § 1915(d), the verb "assign" was already part of the federal statutory lexicon; Congress' decision to depart from prior usage in fashioning a rule for civil cases [5]…”
United States v. Jesus Alejandro Chavez, 894 F.3d 593 (4th Cir. 2018). “These defendants are thus also unable to establish that they were entitled to separate trials. VII. The next challenge comes from defendant Guevara, who argues that the district court denied him his statutory right to two lawyers under 18 U.”
United States v. Akbar, 74 M.J. 364 (C.A.A.F. 2015). “” 18 U.S.C. § 3005 (2012). Congress has even extended this requirement of “learned 86 United States v.”
United States v. Douglas, 525 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 2008). “On appeal, Douglas contends principally (1) that, because a § 2113(e) offense may be punished by death, he was entitled to representation by two attorneys, see 18 U.S.C. § 3005 , and the district court erred in dismissing one of his two appointed attorneys after the government…”
United States v. James Wells, 879 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2017). “Within three weeks of Wells’ initial appearance, FPD Curtner successfully moved to have a second court-appointed attorney, Peter Offenbecher, assigned to the then-capital case, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3005 . In a motion for reconsideration thereof, the Government unsuccessfully…”
United States v. Mikhel, 889 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2018). “The panel explained that the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 3005 , under which a capital defendant has the right to two counsel, is not undermined by one attorney’s de minimis absence from trial, and that any error stemming from the three-day absence from trial of one of Mikhel’s…”
United States v. William Cordova, 806 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “Cordova, Gutierrez, and Sorto assert that they are entitled to a new trial because they were denied their right to two attorneys under 18 U.S.C. § 3005 , even after the government filed notice that it *1098 did not intend to seek the death penalty.”
United States v. John Javilo McCullah, 76 F.3d 1087 (10th Cir. 1996). “Appointment of Counsel Under 18 U.S.C. § 3005 , the defendant in a capital ease is entitled, upon request, to the appointment of two defense counsel.”
In Re Quester Sterling-Suarez, 323 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003). “He asked that “learned counsel” be appointed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3005 (2000); the statute specifies that two counsel, one of whom “shall be learned in the law applicable to capital cases,” must at the defendant’s request be appointed “promptly.”
United States v. Michael Waggoner, 339 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2003). “This appeal presents the question of whether 18 U.S.C. § 3005 requires that two attorneys be appointed whenever the government indicts a defendant for a crime punishable by death, even if the death penalty is not sought.”
United States v. Murphy, 50 M.J. 4 (C.A.A.F. 1998). “Nor have we held that 18 USC § 3005 applies to courts-martial. That provision of law, as amended in l994, requires that, in a capital case, the judge shall, "upon the defendants request, assign 2 such counsel, of whom at least 1 shall be learned in the law applicable to capital…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.