Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

363 F.2d 824

Docket No. 20586.

Albert Lee v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden, Etc.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

June 28, 1966.

Rehearing Denied August 4, 1966.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1966-06-28

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 1978

4 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Escobedo v. Illinois · Johnson v. State of New Jersey

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1966-06-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Albert Lee, in pro. per.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Michael Phelan, Deputy Atty. Gen., Horace Wheatley, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before HAMLEY, MERRILL and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966) requires rejection of appellant's contention that the rule of Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964) should be applied retrospectively to his in-custody interrogation. The fact that the questioning was secretly recorded, and the recording introduced in evidence, does not in itself present a constitutional violation. Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 438-440, 83 S.Ct. 1381, 10 L.Ed.2d 462 (1963); Benson v. People of State of California, 336 F.2d 791 (9th Cir., 1964); Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718, 738 (9th Cir., 1963); Todisco v. United States, 298 F.2d 208 (9th Cir., 1961). The remaining grounds for relief relied upon by appellant were properly rejected because alleged only in conclusory terms, unsupported by factual detail.

¶2

Affirmed.

/363/f2d/824 · .json · Public domain