Anthony Williams v. United States

345 F.2d 733
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMay 17, 1965
Docket18928_1
StatusPublished
Cited by32 cases

This text of 345 F.2d 733 (Anthony Williams v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anthony Williams v. United States, 345 F.2d 733 (D.C. Cir. 1965).

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

The appeal is from the conviction of appellant of robbery, defined in 22 D.C. Code § 2901 and of assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of 22 D.C. Code § 502. At the trial defendant was identified by three witnesses as the person who committed the robbery and assault. His counsel appointed by this court, however, strongly contends on the appeal that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter judgments of conviction because the defendant was denied his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel granted by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. The evidence admitted at the trial and associated with his contention was to the effect that the identifying witnesses had previously identified defendant in a police lineup held shortly after the commission of the crimes and when appellant, the accused, was without counsel.

The case does not resemble factually any recent decision of the Supreme Court in which a conviction has been held invalid due to denial of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, although the lack of such assistance prior to trial has been held fatal to convictions in a variety of circumstances. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964); Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964); White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 10 L.Ed.2d 193 (1963). It is our understanding from these decisions that such result depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. In the present case, especially in view of the fact that the evidence referred to consisted only of identification in a police lineup prior to indictment, the deprivation claimed cannot be held to have occurred.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Hernandez v. State
726 S.W.2d 53 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Capparella v. Boslow
308 F. Supp. 209 (D. Maryland, 1970)
King v. Beto
305 F. Supp. 636 (S.D. Texas, 1969)
United States v. Donald A. Broadhead
413 F.2d 1351 (Seventh Circuit, 1969)
Ernest S. Borum v. United States
409 F.2d 433 (D.C. Circuit, 1969)
Roosevelt Wright, Jr. v. United States
404 F.2d 1256 (D.C. Circuit, 1968)
Lawrence v. United States
224 A.2d 306 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1966)
Jesse James Gilbert v. United States
366 F.2d 923 (Ninth Circuit, 1966)
United States v. James Delmar Deaton
364 F.2d 820 (Sixth Circuit, 1966)
Gallegos v. Turner
256 F. Supp. 670 (D. Utah, 1966)
Francis B. Reichert, Jr. v. United States
359 F.2d 278 (D.C. Circuit, 1966)
United States v. George Robinson
354 F.2d 109 (Second Circuit, 1965)
William W. Kennedy v. United States
353 F.2d 462 (D.C. Circuit, 1965)
Earl R. Cephus v. United States
352 F.2d 663 (D.C. Circuit, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
345 F.2d 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-williams-v-united-states-cadc-1965.