Case Name: UNITED STATES of America v. Robert E. WILLIAMS, Appellant; UNITED STATES of America v. Gerald COLEMAN, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1972-04-19
Citations: 469 F.2d 540
Docket Number: Nos. 24805, 24806
Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Robert E. WILLIAMS, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America v. Gerald COLEMAN, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 469
Pages: 540–547

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America v. Robert E. WILLIAMS, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America v. Gerald COLEMAN, Appellant.
Nos. 24805, 24806.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Dec. 14, 1971.
Decided April 19, 1972.
Rehearing Denied May 22, 1972.
Certiorari Denied Oct. 10,1972.
See 93 S.Ct. 203.
Mr. Philip B. Brown, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellants.
Mr. Roger M. Adelman, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Thomas A. Flannery, U. S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, and John A. Terry, William H. Collins, Jr. and Roger E. Zuckerman, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and WRIGHT and LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This court sitting en banc affirmed these cases on all issues except "as to whether the lineups and in-court testi mony on identification constitute the kind of unfairness that taints a conviction under Stovall v. Denno." As to those issues we remanded to the District Court "for Stovall hearings and appropriate determinations concerning the identification of appellants." Williams v. United States, 136 U.S.App.D.C. 158, 165, 419 F.2d 740, 747 (1969) (en banc). After full hearing the District Court found that the evidence revealed no due process defect in the identifications of these appellants by witnesses at trial. These appeals are limited to the District Court's decision on remand.
We agree that, for the reasons stated in Judge Bazelon's concurring and dissenting opinion, the conviction as to Coleman should be affirmed. As to appellant Williams, we find that his conviction also should be affirmed. The lineups in these cases were conducted prior to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967); 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). While these lineups would certainly not pass muster today, we cannot say that the Williams lineup, considering the time it was held, was so lacking in fundamental fairness as to violate due process.
Affirmed.
The Williams lineup is described in the concurring and dissenting opinion.