FRANK MOORE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK A. EYMAN, WARDEN, RESPONDENT-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 right to counsel had not attached at the pre-indictment lineup and that any error related to the lineup was harmless due to an independent in-court identification.
Appellant, a state prisoner, sought habeas corpus relief, arguing his conviction relied on eyewitness identification from a lineup where he was denied…
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 Kirby V. Illinois cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, an Arizona state prisoner, seeks release by writ of habeas corpus. He contends that his conviction was based on identification by an eyewitness who had picked him out of a line-up and had so testified; that appellant had requested and been denied counsel at the time of the line-up. He relies on United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967) and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967).
The line-up, however, was prior to indictment (or other initiation of adversary judicial proceeding) and right to counsel had not attached. Kirby v. Illi nois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972).
Further, findings of the District Court after a full evidentiary hearing render Wade and Gilbert inapplicable. The court found that the in-court identification was completely independent of the line-up identification. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 240-241, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967). See also, United States v. Breaux, 450 F. 2d 948 (9th Cir. 1971). This finding was not clearly erroneous. Indeed, it was overwhelmingly supported by the record. Any testimonial reference to the line-up at the time of trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 272-274, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967)
- Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1967)
- Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (U.S. 1972)
- United States v. Breaux, 450 F.2d 948 (9th Cir. 1971)