U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1969

Harold A. Spriggs v. Jerry v. Wilson

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided October 16, 1969 · Bazelon, Wright, McGowan

419 F.2d 759; 136 U.S. App. D.C. 177; 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10407 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

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 Flan-nery, U. S. Atty., and John A. Terry and Mrs. Ellen Lee Park, Asst. U. S. Attys., also entered appearances for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Harold A. Spriggs, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Jerry v. Wilson, Chief of Police (D.C. Cir. 1972)
United States v. Charles J. Ash, Jr. (D.C. Cir. 1972)
United States v. Gregory H. Neverson (D.C. Cir. 1972)
United States v. Eley (D.C. 1972)
United States v. Ronald S. Greene (D.C. Cir. 1970)
United States v. John R. Branic, United States of America v. Donald T. Stevens, United States of America v. Tyrone Baskerville (D.C. Cir. 1974)
United States v. Eley (D.C. 1972)
United States ex rel. Vanterpool v. Cahn (District Court, E.D. New York 1970)

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:

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.

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