United States ex rel. Green v. Follette
Opinion
We affirm by applying the principles set forth in United States ex rel. Rutherford v. Deegan, 406 F.2d 217 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 983, 89 S.Ct. 2145, 23 L.Ed.2d 771 (1969). There is nothing in the “totality of circumstances surrounding” the identification to justify a finding that there was any “likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” Id., 406 F.2d at 220; see Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 301-302, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967); accord, Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 383, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). Since the judgment of conviction was entered on January 21, 1959, the case is governed by the holding of the Supreme Court in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967 (1967). There was no violation of relator’s constitutional right to due process.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
421 F.2d 1392 (United States ex rel. Green v. Follette) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.