Matter of the Application of Vincent Cicenia for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Vincent Cicenia

Third Circuit

Matter of the Application of Vincent Cicenia for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Vincent Cicenia

240 F.2d 844

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 7, 1957

Docket12011_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 240 F.2d 844 (Matter of the Application of Vincent Cicenia for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Vincent Cicenia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of the Application of Vincent Cicenia for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Vincent Cicenia, 240 F.2d 844 (3d Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The case of the appellant has been ably presented to us by counsel appointed by the trial court. Every issue of the case has been covered adequately by Chief Judge Forman in his thorough opinion, D.C., 148 F.Supp. 98, and it would be a work of supererogation to repeat the arguments of the parties here and deal •It. at. _ with them anew.

The decision of the court below was correct in all respects. Until the Supreme Court of New Jersey reverses its holding that an accused may be denied the opportunity to consult with counsel during the period of police interrogation between arrest and arraignment and that the right to counsel contemplates only assistance of counsel at the trial, and preparation for trial of the case, State v. Grillo, 1952, 11 N.J. 173, 93 A.2d 328, or until the Supreme Court of the United States reverses the Supreme Court of New Jersey in these respects we cannot hold that an accused was denied due process of law under circumstances such as those at bar. We repeat, however, what the trial court said, that “This result is reached without enthusiasm.” [148 F.Supp. 104.]

The judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The case of the appellant has been ably presented to us by counsel appointed by the trial court. Every issue of the case has been covered adequately by Chief Judge Forman in his thorough opinion, D.C., 148 F.Supp. 98, and it would be a work of supererogation to repeat the arguments of the parties here and deal •It. at. _ with them anew.

The decision of the court below was correct in all respects. Until the Supreme Court of New Jersey reverses its holding that an accused may be denied the opportunity to consult with counsel during the period of police interrogation between arrest and arraignment and that the right to counsel contemplates only assistance of counsel at the trial, and preparation for trial of the case, State v. Grillo, 1952, 11 N.J. 173, 93 A.2d 328, or until the Supreme Court of the United States reverses the Supreme Court of New Jersey in these respects we cannot hold that an accused was denied due process of law under circumstances such as those at bar. We repeat, however, what the trial court said, that “This result is reached without enthusiasm.” [148 F.Supp. 104.]

The judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 F.2d 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-the-application-of-vincent-cicenia-for-a-writ-of-habeas-corpus-ca3-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack