Albert Lee v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden, Etc.

363 F.2d 824
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 4, 1966
Docket20586
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 363 F.2d 824 (Albert Lee v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden, Etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Albert Lee v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden, Etc., 363 F.2d 824 (9th Cir. 1966).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966) requires rejection of appellant’s contention that the rule of Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964) should be applied retrospectively to his in-custody interrogation. The fact that the questioning was secretly recorded, and the recording introduced in evidence, does not in itself present a constitutional violation. Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 438-440, 83 S.Ct. 1381, 10 L.Ed.2d 462 (1963); Benson v. People of State of California, 336 F.2d 791 (9th Cir., 1964); Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718, 738 (9th Cir., 1963); Todisco v. United States, 298 F.2d 208 (9th Cir., 1961). The remaining grounds for relief relied upon by appellant were properly rejected because alleged only in conclusory terms, unsupported by factual detail.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
363 F.2d 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-lee-v-lawrence-e-wilson-warden-etc-ca9-1966.