Harold A. Spriggs v. Jerry v. Wilson

D.C. Circuit

Harold A. Spriggs v. Jerry v. Wilson

419 F.2d 759, 136 U.S. App. D.C. 177, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10407

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 16, 1969

Docket23548_1

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 419 F.2d 759 (Harold A. Spriggs v. Jerry v. Wilson) 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

Harold A. Spriggs v. Jerry v. Wilson, 419 F.2d 759, 136 U.S. App. D.C. 177, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10407 (D.C. Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

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. 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 *760 1968). We, of course, do not intend to indicate any opinion on the merits of the other issues raised on this appeal.

Motion denied.

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

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. 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 *760 1968). We, of course, do not intend to indicate any opinion on the merits of the other issues raised on this appeal.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

419 F.2d 759, 136 U.S. App. D.C. 177, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harold-a-spriggs-v-jerry-v-wilson-cadc-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack