Doherty v. United States

1971-11-09

Headline: Court orders Ninth Circuit to reconsider appointing counsel for an indigent federal prisoner’s Supreme Court petition, grants him in forma pauperis status, and vacates the appellate court’s denial for reconsideration.

Holding: The Court granted review, allowed Doherty to proceed in forma pauperis, vacated the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance and denial of counsel, and remanded for reconsideration of counsel appointment.

Real World Impact:

Requires courts of appeals to reconsider appointing counsel for indigent Supreme Court petitions.
Lets eligible prisoners proceed in forma pauperis in this Court without prepaying fees.
Restarts the time to file a Supreme Court petition when the appeals court re-enters judgment.

Topics: right to counsel, Supreme Court review, criminal appeals, indigent defense

Summary

Background

Doherty, a federal prisoner convicted of smuggling marijuana, had his conviction affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. His private lawyer withdrew after the appeal because Doherty lacked funds. He asked the Ninth Circuit to appoint counsel to help prepare an appeal to the Supreme Court, but the court denied his pro se request. He then applied to this Court for counsel and to proceed without payment.

Reasoning

The Court treated his application as a request to review the appeals court’s refusal to appoint counsel. It noted the Ninth Circuit has a local rule requiring appointed counsel to advise clients about seeking Supreme Court review, but that rule did not help because Doherty’s counsel had been retained, not appointed. The opinion explained that the Criminal Justice Act and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 44 may entitle indigent federal defendants to appointed counsel for petitions to this Court. Because it was unclear whether the Ninth Circuit considered those statutory provisions, the Supreme Court granted review, allowed Doherty to proceed in forma pauperis, vacated the appeals court’s judgment and its order denying counsel, and remanded the case for reconsideration consistent with this opinion.

Real world impact

The Ninth Circuit must reconsider whether to appoint a lawyer to help Doherty prepare his Supreme Court filing and must re-enter its judgment so Doherty’s filing time runs anew. The ruling signals that courts should consider the Criminal Justice Act and Rule 44 when indigent defendants seek help preparing Supreme Court petitions. This decision does not resolve the merits of Doherty’s conviction; it only affects whether he gets appointed counsel and the timing of any Supreme Court filing.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas wrote separately to emphasize that Rule 44 and the Criminal Justice Act were intended to provide counsel "through appeal," including petitions to this Court, and that courts of appeals are the appropriate bodies to handle appointment requests so petitions can be filed promptly.