Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Kevin G. Taylor v. United States, 59 F.3d 164, 1st Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Kevin Taylor appealed the denial of his motion to set aside his conviction and sentence. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial for substantially the same reasons. Specifically, the lack of counsel at Taylor's arraignment, where only a not guilty plea was entered, did not prejudice subsequent trial proceedings or warrant relief under Section 2255 without evidence that it infected other stages of the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Kevin G. Taylor v. United States, 59 F.3d 164, 1st Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views2 pages
    Kevin Taylor appealed the denial of his motion to set aside his conviction and sentence. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial for substantially the same reasons. Specifically, the lack of counsel at Taylor's arraignment, where only a not guilty plea was entered, did not prejudice subsequent trial proceedings or warrant relief under Section 2255 without evidence that it infected other stages of the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-06-20 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 59 F.3d 164 Docket: 94-2143

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Kevin Taylor appealed the denial of his motion to set aside his conviction and sentence. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial for substantially the same reasons. Specifically, the lack of counsel at Taylor's arraignment, where only a not guilty plea was entered, did not prejudice subsequent trial proceedings or warrant relief under Section 2255 without evidence that it infected other stages of the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    12 views2 pages

    Kevin G. Taylor v. United States, 59 F.3d 164, 1st Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Kevin Taylor appealed the denial of his motion to set aside his conviction and sentence. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial for substantially the same reasons. Specifically, the lack of counsel at Taylor's arraignment, where only a not guilty plea was entered, did not prejudice subsequent trial proceedings or warrant relief under Section 2255 without evidence that it infected other stages of the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    59 F.

    3d 164
    NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished opinions may be
    cited only in related cases.

    Kevin G. TAYLOR, Petitioner, Appellant,


    v.
    UNITED STATES of America, Respondent, Appellee.
    No. 94-2143.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    First Circuit.
    June 20, 1995.

    Kevin G. Taylor on brief pro se.


    Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Kimberly S. Budd,
    Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.
    D.Mass.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before CYR, BOUDIN and STAHL, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.

    This is an appeal of a district court order denying the motion of petitioner


    Kevin Taylor to set aside his conviction and sentence. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255.
    We affirm the district court's order substantially for the reasons given by Judge
    Skinner, adding a brief comment. Like the district court, we can find no
    indication that the lack of counsel at arraignment affected petitioner's
    subsequent trial. No presumption exists that lack of counsel at an arraignment
    prejudices all subsequent stages of the proceeding where, as here, the only
    significant happening at the arraignment was the entry of a not guilty plea.
    And, without some infection of the subsequent proceedings, there is no warrant
    for relief under Sec. 2255.

    Affirmed.

    You might also like