Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Harold A. Spriggs v. Jerry v. Wilson

419 F.2d 759

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1969-10-16
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: The motion for stay is denied. In so doing, we deem it appropriate to state, as we suggested in United States v. Allen, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 84, 408 F.2d 1287 (1969), that on this record we see no reason, and the Government at oral argument has offered none beyond an unsubstantiated reference to convenience, why the right to effective assistance of counsel does not require that the description of the suspect as given to the police be made available to counsel for the appellant at the lineup. See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); Gilbert v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Harold A. Spriggs v. Jerry v. Wilson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
13 opinions
SPRIGGS v. WILSON,419 F.2d 759(D.C. Cir. 1969)
Harold A. SPRIGGS, Appellant, v. Jerry V. WILSON et al., Appellees.
No. 23548
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued October 14, 1969.
Decided October 16, 1969.
Mr. Norman Lefstein, with whom Mr. Joseph Paull, Washington, D.C., was on the motion, for appellant.

Mr. Donald S. Smith, Asst. U.S. Atty. for appellees. Messrs. Thomas A Flannery, U.S. Atty., and John A. Terry and Mrs. Ellen Lee Park, Asst. U.S. Attys., also entered appearances for appellees.
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and WRIGHT and McGOWAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The motion for stay is denied. In so doing, we deem it appropriate to state, as we suggested in United States v. Allen, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 84,408 F.2d 1287(1969), that on this record we see no reason, and the Government at oral argument has offered none beyond an unsubstantiated reference to convenience, why the right to effective assistance of counsel does not require that the description of the suspect as given to the police be made available to counsel for the appellant at the lineup.SeeUnited States v. Wade,388 U.S. 218,87 S.Ct. 1926,18 L.Ed.2d 1149(1967); Gilbert v. California,388 U.S. 263,87 S.Ct. 1951,18 L.Ed.2d 1178(1967).See alsoA.L.I. Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure, Study Draft No. 1, page 32 (AprilPage 7601968). We, of course, do not intend to indicate any opinion on the merits of the other issues raised on this appeal.

Motion denied.