U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1965

Nathaniel E. Shelton v. United States of America, Robert B. Pannell v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided March 26, 1965 · Miller, Fahy, Wright

343 F.2d 347 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Messrs. Samuel K. Abrams and Bernard M. Beerman (both appointed by this court), Washington, D. C., for appellants., Mr. Martin R. Hoffmann, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and John A. Terry, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Lawrence D. Coleman v. The Honorable Arthur L. Burnett, United States Magistrate for the District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 1973)
George T. C. Lollar v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1967)
George E. Ross, Jr. v. The Honorable John J. Sirica, United States District Judge (D.C. Cir. 1967)
Jean L. Chester v. The People of the State of California (9th Cir. 1966)
Ernest H. Holmes v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1966)
Calvin C. Anderson v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1965)
United States v. Willie Bell, (Two Cases) (D.C. Cir. 1974)
United States v. Judith Tomlinson Bullock (5th Cir. 1971)
Melvin Lee Hall v. United States (3d Cir. 1969)
Oscar Dancy, Jr. v. United States of America, (Two Cases) (D.C. Cir. 1966)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were convicted, on strong evidence, of housebreaking, defined in 22 D.C.Code § 1801, and were sentenced under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5010(c) (1958). The only contention for reversal which we need discuss is that at their preliminary hearing before the United States Commissioner appellants were without counsel or adequate advice with respect to counsel. It is the Commissioner’s duty and in some circumstances it may be essential to the validity of a subsequent conviction, to afford indigent accused who are without counsel the assistance of counsel at the preliminary hearing, if desired, and to advise of the availability of counsel. 1 The absence of such assistance and adviee, however, does not necessarily invalidate a subsequent conviction *348 at trial after indictment. 2 3 In these cases no evidence in the nature of a confession or of any other character was adduced at the preliminary hearing and used at the trial. And we can find no basis in the record for an informed speculation that the trial itself was in any way prejudicially affected by the absence of counsel at the preliminary hearing.

Affirmed.

. Blue v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. -, 342 F.2d 894 (1964). The Commissioner did advise the appellants of their rights as specified in Rule 5(b) Fed.R. Crim.P. including their right to retain counsel.

. In Blue v. United States, supra, 342 F. 2d 894-899 we held that an accused has other remedies to enforce his right to counsel at his preliminary hearing. See also Washington v. Clemmer, 119 U.S. App.D.G. -, 339 F.2d 725 (June 12, 1964).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.