Doyle Delmar Royal v. State of Maryland

Fourth Circuit

Doyle Delmar Royal v. State of Maryland

529 F.2d 1280, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13147

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 1976

Docket75--1589

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 529 F.2d 1280 (Doyle Delmar Royal v. State of Maryland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doyle Delmar Royal v. State of Maryland, 529 F.2d 1280, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13147 (4th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Upon consideration of the briefs, the record and the argument in this case, we find no reversible error.

The lineup conducted by the police was impermissibly suggestive, but, in light of all the positive identification testimony and strong evidence of guilt, admission of the evidence concerning pretrial identification was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

We are satisfied that the Court of Appeals of Maryland properly rejected the confrontation contention discussed in the dissenting opinion of our brother Winter. See Royal v. State of Maryland, 236 Md. 443, 204 A.2d 500. We will not repeat the extended discussion of the matter in the state court. The two witnesses did take the stand and were sworn, and they answered all questions propounded to them. Counsel for the defense stopped short of questions about Royal’s alibi claim that he was with his two co-defendants shortly before the robbery, but was left by them and later picked up by them after the robbery had been completed. Doubtless he did so because he could think of no way to frame the question without reference to the participation by the witnesses in the robbery, a matter as to which the witnesses had invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Upon consideration of the briefs, the record and the argument in this case, we find no reversible error.

The lineup conducted by the police was impermissibly suggestive, but, in light of all the positive identification testimony and strong evidence of guilt, admission of the evidence concerning pretrial identification was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

We are satisfied that the Court of Appeals of Maryland properly rejected the confrontation contention discussed in the dissenting opinion of our brother Winter. See Royal v. State of Maryland, 236 Md. 443, 204 A.2d 500. We will not repeat the extended discussion of the matter in the state court. The two witnesses did take the stand and were sworn, and they answered all questions propounded to them. Counsel for the defense stopped short of questions about Royal’s alibi claim that he was with his two co-defendants shortly before the robbery, but was left by them and later picked up by them after the robbery had been completed. Doubtless he did so because he could think of no way to frame the question without reference to the participation by the witnesses in the robbery, a matter as to which the witnesses had invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

529 F.2d 1280, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doyle-delmar-royal-v-state-of-maryland-ca4-1976.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack