Moore v. Eyman, 71-2847.
Decision Date | 13 July 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 71-2847.,71-2847. |
Citation | 464 F.2d 559 |
Parties | Frank MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank A. EYMAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Edward C. Rapp (argued), of Tupper, Rapp, Salcito & Schlosser, Phoenix, Ariz., for petitioner-appellant.
William P. Dixon, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), Roderic A. Dietz, Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., for respondent-appellee.
Before MERRILL, ELY and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
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. Illinois, 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Richman
...1972); United States v. Savage, 470 F.2d 948 (3d Cir. 1972); United States v. Coades, 468 F.2d 1061 (3d Cir. 1972); and, Moore v. Eyman, 464 F.2d 559 (9th Cir. 1972). 4 Houston v. State, 49 Ala.App. 403, 272 So.2d 610 (1973); State v. Money, 110 Ariz. 18, 514 P.2d 1014 (1973); People v. Cho......
-
Young v. State of Oklahoma
...right to counsel at the lineup his request could not of itself create a right to counsel which did not otherwise exist. In Moore v. Eyman, 464 F.2d 559 (C.A.9 1972) the court held that the habeas petitioner was not entitled to relief on the ground that his conviction was based on identifica......
-
State v. Knapp
...to counsel had not attached under Kirby and the motion to suppress for lack of counsel was therefore properly denied. Moore v. Eyman, 464 F.2d 559 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Bothwell, 465 F.2d 217 (9th Cir. Next, defendant contends that the pre-information lineup was impermissibly su......
-
United States v. Smith
...when the government initiates adversarial proceedings); Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 170 (1985) (same). 46. Moore v. Eyman, 464 F.2d 559, 559-60 (9th Cir. 1972) (citing Kirby, 406 U.S. 682). 47. Docket 465 at 10-11, 12 (under seal) (citing Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981)). 48. Dock......