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 *760 1968). We, of course, do not intend to indicate any opinion on the merits of the other issues raised on this appeal.

Motion denied.