United States of America Ex Rel. Clifton Brandon v. The State of New Jersey

Third Circuit

United States of America Ex Rel. Clifton Brandon v. The State of New Jersey

461 F.2d 764, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9063

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 12, 1972

Docket71-1841

StatusPublished

This text of 461 F.2d 764 (United States of America Ex Rel. Clifton Brandon v. The State of New Jersey) 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

United States of America Ex Rel. Clifton Brandon v. The State of New Jersey, 461 F.2d 764, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9063 (3d Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was tried and convicted in the criminal courts of Somerset County, New Jersey, for his role in the armed robbery of a liquor store. After having exhausted his state remedies, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the District of New Jersey which was denied. We affirm.

Relying on this Court’s decision in United States v. Zeiler, 427 F.2d 1305 (3d Cir. 1970), appellant contends that the absence of counsel at a pretrial photographic display was violative of his constitutional rights. This argument, however, is precluded by our recent decision in United States ex rel. Reed v. Anderson, 461 F.2d 739 (3d Cir., 1972). Appellant also argues that the pretrial identification procedures were violative of the due process standards enumerated by the Supreme Court in Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). However, our examination of the record reveals that the identification procedure at issue complied with the Simmons standard.

The order of the District Court will be affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was tried and convicted in the criminal courts of Somerset County, New Jersey, for his role in the armed robbery of a liquor store. After having exhausted his state remedies, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the District of New Jersey which was denied. We affirm.

Relying on this Court’s decision in United States v. Zeiler, 427 F.2d 1305 (3d Cir. 1970), appellant contends that the absence of counsel at a pretrial photographic display was violative of his constitutional rights. This argument, however, is precluded by our recent decision in United States ex rel. Reed v. Anderson, 461 F.2d 739 (3d Cir., 1972). Appellant also argues that the pretrial identification procedures were violative of the due process standards enumerated by the Supreme Court in Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). However, our examination of the record reveals that the identification procedure at issue complied with the Simmons standard.

The order of the District Court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

461 F.2d 764, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-ex-rel-clifton-brandon-v-the-state-of-new-jersey-ca3-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack