James W. Rogers v. United States

D.C. Circuit

James W. Rogers v. United States

263 F.2d 902, 105 U.S. App. D.C. 65, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4387

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 19, 1959

Docket14711

StatusPublished

This text of 263 F.2d 902 (James W. Rogers 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

James W. Rogers v. United States, 263 F.2d 902, 105 U.S. App. D.C. 65, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4387 (D.C. Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from a conviction on a two count indictment charging two robberies in violation of § 22-2901, D.C. Code (1951). Counsel appointed by this court has diligently and ably presented the case to us. His first contention challenges the admissibility of certain evidence as inconsistent with the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479, and related cases. However, appellant cannot avail himself of the Mallory rule since it is not shown that this evidence consisted of statements made during illegal detention. Moreover, it did not result from police interrogation. The only other contention is that appellant was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. But this contention also must be decided against appellant under the principles laid down in Mitchell v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C.-, 259 F.2d 787, certiorari denied 358 U.S. 850, 79 S.Ct. 81, 3 L.Ed.2d 86. But for this court’s decision in Mitchell, Judge Bazelon would hold that appellant was denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from a conviction on a two count indictment charging two robberies in violation of § 22-2901, D.C. Code (1951). Counsel appointed by this court has diligently and ably presented the case to us. His first contention challenges the admissibility of certain evidence as inconsistent with the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479, and related cases. However, appellant cannot avail himself of the Mallory rule since it is not shown that this evidence consisted of statements made during illegal detention. Moreover, it did not result from police interrogation. The only other contention is that appellant was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. But this contention also must be decided against appellant under the principles laid down in Mitchell v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C.-, 259 F.2d 787, certiorari denied 358 U.S. 850, 79 S.Ct. 81, 3 L.Ed.2d 86. But for this court’s decision in Mitchell, Judge Bazelon would hold that appellant was denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 F.2d 902, 105 U.S. App. D.C. 65, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-w-rogers-v-united-states-cadc-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack