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

Barnett v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided December 13, 1965

356 F.2d 791; 123 U.S. App. D.C. 38 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Walter Freedman, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) for appellants., Miss Carol Garfiel, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. John C. Conliff, Jr., U. S. Atty., at the time the brief was filed, and Mr. Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee. Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., and John A. Terry, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered appearances for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Raymond A. Ridley (D.C. Cir. 1969)
Ernest L. Stith v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1966)
Leroy Barnett v. United States of America, Gary Morris v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1966)
Chin Kee v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1st Cir. 1969)

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 of the Court

PER CURIAM:

Appellants seek reversal of their convictions for robbery on the sole ground that counsel was not present in the arraignment proceeding at which they pleaded “not guilty.” We have recently rejected this contention in Anderson v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. -, 352 F.2d 945, decided Oct. 28, 1965; Mc-Gill & Hinton v. United States, 121 U.S. App.D.C. 179, 348 F.2d 791 (1965). And the presence of counsel for the indigent at arraignment is now assured by the Plan for Furnishing Representation for Indigent Defendants in Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Cases, pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, which was not in effect at the time of appellants’ arraignment:

Arraignment Without Counsel.

If the defendant appears for arraignment without counsel, the Judge will refer the defendant’s name to the Coordinator for a preliminary determination of financial ability to obtain an adequate defense and for submission of attorneys’ names for appointment.

Affirmed.

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