NATHANIEL E. SHELTON, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE; ROBERT B. PANNELL, APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The absence of counsel at a preliminary hearing does not invalidate a subsequent conviction if no evidence from that hearing was used at trial and the trial was not otherwise prejudiced.
Appellants were convicted of housebreaking and sentenced under the Federal Youth Corrections Act. Their appeal contended they were denied counsel at t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Counsel At Preliminary Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
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 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).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lollar v. United States, 376 F.2d 243 (D.C. Cir. 1967)
-
Ross v. The Honorable John J. Sirica, 380 F.2d 557 (D.C. Cir. 1967)
-
United States v. Bell, 506 F.2d 207 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blue v. United States, 342 F.2d 894 (D.C. Cir. 1964)
- Washington v. Clemmer, 339 F.2d 725 (D.C. Cir. 1964)