WILLIAM S. HAIRSTON, 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 court held that the defendant was not prejudiced by the waiver of a preliminary examination, as counsel was appointed and the waiver was informed.
Appellant was convicted of assault with intent to rob and assault with a dangerous weapon. He appealed, arguing prejudice from waiving his preliminary…
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 Intent to Rob cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted after a jury trial of assault with intent to rob (D.C. Code § 22-501) and assault with a dangerous weapon (D.C.Code § 22-502), and was sentenced to terms of imprisonment, up to six years on the former offense, to be served concurrently.
Counsel appointed by this court vigorously presses the contention that appellant was prejudiced by the fact that preliminary examination was waived and hence trial counsel did not have the benefit at trial and in preparation for trial of defense cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses, and examination of the real evidence, proffered at the preliminary examination provided for in F.R.Crim.P. Rule 5.
Reliance is placed on our rulings in Blue v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 315, 342 F. 2d 894 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 944, 85 S.Ct. 1029, 13 L.Ed.2d 964, and Dancy v. United States, Nos. 18366, 18716, opinion October 14, 1965, modified February 11, 1966, 124 U.S. App.D.C. ___, 361 F. 2d 75. Blue expounds the statutory right to counsel, under the District of Columbia Legal Aid Act, of the arrested person brought before the commissioner. In Dancy defendant was without counsel at the preliminary examination, which was held before the issuance of Blue.
Appellant’s case, however, arose after Blue had made its appearance. The D. C. Court of General Sessions did appoint counsel for appellant when he was brought there following the arrest. Appellant conferred with counsel before preliminary examination was waived. It is not alleged that appellant did not participate in the decision to waive preliminary hearing. We do not know the nature of their conference, but we cannot say that there was no basis for an informed decision to waive preliminary examination, a waiver which is specifically provided for in Rule 5(c). The possibilities of prejudice are speculative. We see no basis for reversal.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Blue v. United States, 342 F.2d 894 (D.C. Cir. 1964)
- Harmon v. United States, 380 U.S. 944 (U.S. 1965)
- N. Metal Co. v. Pa. Bd. of Fin. & Revenue, 380 U.S. 944 (U.S. 1965)
- Dancy v. United States, 361 F.2d 75 (D.C. Cir. 1965)