Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google
Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google
News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google
Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Harold A. Spriggs, Appellant, v. Jerry v. Wilson et al., Appellees
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 419 F.2d 759
Argued Oct. 14, 1969.Decided Oct. 16, 1969
Mr. Norman Lefstein, with whom Mr. Joseph Paull, Washington, D.C., was on the motion, for appellant.
Mr. Donald S. Smith, Asst. U.S. Atty. for appellees. Messrs. Thomas A. Flannery, U.S. Atty., and John A. Terry and Mrs. Ellen Lee Park, Asst. U.S. Attys., also entered appearances for appellees.
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and WRIGHT and McGOWAN, Circuit judges.
PER CURIAM:
The motion for stay is denied. In so doing, we deem it appropriate to state, as we suggested in United States v. Allen, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 84, 408 F.2d 1287 (1969), that on this record we see no reason, and the Government at oral argument has offered none beyond an unsubstantiated reference to convenience, why the right to effective assistance of counsel does not require that the description of the suspect as given to the police be made available to counsel for the appellant at the lineup. See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967). See also A.L.I. Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure, Study Draft No. 1, page 32 (April 1968). We, of course, do not intend to indicate any opinion on the merits of the other issues raised on this appeal.
Motion denied.