TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Leroy Barnett v. United States of America, Gary Morris v. United States

Leroy Barnett v. United States of Am., Gary Morris v. United States, 356 F.2d 791 (D.C. Cir. 1966)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 24, 1966
Docket
No. 19446_1
Citations
356 F.2d 791

Opinion

356 F.2d 791 123 U.S.App.D.C. 38

Leroy BARNETT, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Gary MORRIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

Nos. 19445, 19446.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Nov. 15, 1965. Decided Dec. 13, 1965, Petition for Rehearing En Banc in No. 19,445 DeniedMarch 24, 1966.

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.

Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, PRETTYMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and FAHY, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

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; McGill & 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:

2

Arraignment Without Counsel.

3

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.

4

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1969: 119692026peak 1969 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Chin Kee v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts407 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1969)

Most recent

  1. Chin Kee v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts407 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1969)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
McGill v. United States, Walter M, 348 F.2d 791 (D.C. Cir. 1965) 61
Barnett v. United States, 356 F.2d 791 (D.C. Cir. 1965) 4
Anderson v. United States, 352 F.2d 945 (D.C. Cir. 1965) 27

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list