Legal Opinion

Barnett v. United States

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided December 13, 1965No. Nos. 19445, 19446PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

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; Mc-Gill & 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…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Charles McGill v. United States of America, Walter M. Hinton v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1965
  2. Calvin C. Anderson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1965

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. United States v. Raymond A. RidleyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1969
  2. Chin Kee v. Commonwealth of MassachusettsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1969
  3. Ernest L. Stith v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1966
  4. Leroy Barnett v. United States of America, Gary Morris v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1966

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API