United States v. Michael John Sanders

Third Circuit

United States v. Michael John Sanders

459 F.2d 86, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10111

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedApril 12, 1972

Docket71-1609

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 459 F.2d 86 (United States v. Michael John Sanders) 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 v. Michael John Sanders, 459 F.2d 86, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10111 (3d Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This ease is before the court on an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury verdict of guilty of the three counts of an indictment charging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (b) and (d). After careful consideration 1 of the record and Judge Masterson’s opinion of February 9, 1971, 322 F.Supp. 947 (E.D.Pa.), 2 the judgment of conviction will be affirmed.

1

. All the contentions made in defendant’s brief, as well as the points made on defendant’s behalf during the oral argument, liave been considered and rejected.

2

. We agree witli Judge Masterson (p. 4a of Document 46, supra) that the appointment, prior to the appointment of trial counsel, of an attorney associated with the Defender Association to represent the defendant at the line-up under the circumstances of this case was a proper “practice ... to accommodate the dictates of Wade [United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967)] with practical necessities.” Cf. United States ex rel. Reed v. Anderson, 461 F.2d 739 (3d Cir. 1972).

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This ease is before the court on an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury verdict of guilty of the three counts of an indictment charging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (b) and (d). After careful consideration 1 of the record and Judge Masterson’s opinion of February 9, 1971, 322 F.Supp. 947 (E.D.Pa.), 2 the judgment of conviction will be affirmed.

1

. All the contentions made in defendant’s brief, as well as the points made on defendant’s behalf during the oral argument, liave been considered and rejected.

2

. We agree witli Judge Masterson (p. 4a of Document 46, supra) that the appointment, prior to the appointment of trial counsel, of an attorney associated with the Defender Association to represent the defendant at the line-up under the circumstances of this case was a proper “practice ... to accommodate the dictates of Wade [United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967)] with practical necessities.” Cf. United States ex rel. Reed v. Anderson, 461 F.2d 739 (3d Cir. 1972).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

459 F.2d 86, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-michael-john-sanders-ca3-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack