Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Harold A. Spriggs v. Jerry v. Wilson, 23548_1 (1969)

Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Number: 23548_1 Visitors: 7
Filed: Oct. 16, 1969
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 419 F.2d 759 136 U.S.App.D.C. 177 Harold A. SPRIGGS, Appellant, v. Jerry V. WILSON et al., Appellees. No. 23548 United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. Argued Oct. 14, 1969. Decided Oct. 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 f
More

419 F.2d 759

136 U.S.App.D.C. 177

Harold A. SPRIGGS, Appellant,
v.
Jerry V. WILSON et al., Appellees.

No. 23548

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Oct. 14, 1969.
Decided Oct. 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:

1

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. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S. Ct. 1951, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1178 (1967). See also A.L.I. Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure, Study Draft No. 1, page 32 (April 1968). We, of course, do not intend to indicate any opinion on the merits of the other issues raised on this appeal.

2

Motion denied.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer