◆ SpookStack

Le a ee 4 tt i Ne i 606--OPINION 2 ILLINOIS v. ALLEN at gunpoint. The Supreme Court of Hinois affirmed his conviction, People vy. Allen, 37 Til. 2d 167, 226 N. EF. 2d 1 (1967), and this Court denied certiorari. 389 U. 3. 907 (1967). Later Allen filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court alleging that he had been wrong- fully deprived by the I!inois trial judge of his consti- tutional right to remain present throughout his trial. Finding no constitutional viclation, the District Court Findin constitutional violation, District Court declined to issue the writ. The Court of Appeals re- versed, 413 F. 2c 232 (1969), Judge Hastings dissenting. The facts surrounding Allen's expulsion from the court- room are set out in the Court of Appeals’ opinion sus- taining Allen’s contention: “After his indictment and during the pretrial stage, the petitioner [Allen] refused court-appointed counse! and indieated to the trial court on several occasions that he wished to conduct his own de- fense. After considerable argument by the peti- tioner, the trial judge told him, ‘T’ll let you be your own lawyer, but [ll ask Mr. Kelly [court-appointed counsel] [to] sit in and protect the record for you, insofar as possible.’ “The trial began on September 9, 1956. After the State’s Attorney had accepted the first four jurors following their voir dire examination, the petitioner began examining the first, juror and con- tinued at great length. Finally, the trial judge in- terrupted the petitioner, requesting him to confine his questions solely to matters relating to the pros- pective juror’s qualifications. At that point, the petitioner started to argue with the judge in a most abusive and disrespectful manner. At last, and seemingly in desperation. the judge asked appointed counsel to proceed with the examination of the jurors. The petitioner continued to talk, proclaim- ing that the appointed attorney was not going to