Dukes v. Warden, Conn. State Prison

RESPONDENT: Warden, Conn. State Prison
LOCATION: Patuxent Institution

DOCKET NO.: 71-5172
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1972-1975)
LOWER COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court

CITATION: 406 US 250 (1972)
ARGUED: Mar 21, 1972
DECIDED: May 15, 1972

John D. Labelle - for respondent
James A. Wade - for petitioner; and

Facts of the case


Media for Dukes v. Warden, Conn. State Prison

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 21, 1972 in Dukes v. Warden, Conn. State Prison

Warren E. Burger:

The arguments next in 71-5172, Dukes against the Warden.


Warren E. Burger:

The Warden.

That was a very good invitation for me.

Don't you know.

That's all I need in the Court of law.

Merely well that I have done my interview.

His fairly young but he is not so -- not quite as long as he looks he demands his point.

Who is that think it was all who so ever.


They can do anything to.

Warren E. Burger:

Mr. Wade, you may proceed whenever you are ready.

James A. Wade:

Mr. Chief Justice may it please the Court.

I was intrigued this morning to hear the comments of the Court regarding the Right to Counsel and the Need of Counsel in the way that cases and I'm like save primarily that I've related to Mr. Wade that this Court didn't realized.

But the reason I was interested was that this case I think the issue raised herein focuses on the need to have the undivided loyalty of counsel throughout every stage of criminal case.

If I could recite briefly the facts here and because I feel the very important to set a proper framework.

My client is to do he was arrested in hard of March 1967 with charge of violation of Connecticut's uniform narcotics theft.

He retained at Hartford Attorney by the name of Zaccagnino, who was the Senior Partner in law firm by the name Zaccagnino, Linardos and Delaney to represent him and that office entered and confirmed appearance in the lower Court for preliminary hearing on the arrest of the charge.

Down May 9, 1967, when the Mayor was set down for trial in the Hartford Superior Court, Mr. Dukes appeared with his Attorney, Mr. Zaccagnino, and at that time Mr. Zaccagnino moved that he be permitted to withdraw from the action.

As Counsel for Dukes' because as he put it to the Court at that time he has slight conflict with his client.

In that matter was argued by before the trial Judge at that point and the Court denied the motion for Mr. Zaccagnino's withdrawal but continued the case 24 hours to give Dukes a chance to get another lawyer.

William H. Rehnquist:

Mr. Wade, what are on your -- the basic view of the point where the records is the third interpretation of Mr. Zaccagnino's remark to the trial judge to end something of a kind of its called.

James A. Wade:

My judgment would be that that he was trying to convince Dukes to plead guilty and that Dukes didn't want to plead guilty.

And that this was conflict these are the Zaccagnino and Dukes.

I can't say fairly that at that point Mr. Zaccagnino was trying to appraised the Court but there was some other conflict other than that would be my best judgment, Unknown Speaker Rehnquist.

In any case, when my Dukes left the Court room on May 19, he went out the hallway of the Court and was rearrested by the Hartford Police and taken to the Hartford Police Station on a unrelated charge.

And he -- while he was at the Police Station took some pills and became sick and he was taken to a hospital and stayed there for a week.

And then came back in the Court on May 16th with Mr. Zaccagnino's Law partner Mr. Delaney and at that time entered a plea of guilty to the narcotics charge in a minute to the information charging into larceny receiving stolen goods.

At that time, the Trial Judge made an inquiry about the voluntariness of the plea.

The matter was sat down for June 2nd for sentencing but on the 2nd pre-sentence report was not ready on the Dukes matter and so the case was continued again.