Court Opinion

ID: 9458882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:04:33.471947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:55.813847
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
This court sitting en banc affirmed these cases on all issues except “as to whether the lineups and in-court testi*541mony 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.