Opinion
Submitted September 10, 1973
Decided October 11, 1973
Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: "Upon the appeal herein, there was presented and necessarily passed upon questions under the Constitution of the United States, viz: Whether the rights of defendant under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments were denied. Defendant contended that an allegedly improper pre-trial confrontation in the absence of counsel tainted the in-court identifications of two eyewitnesses. He also contended that a purposeful pre-indictment delay of seven months violated his right to a speedy trial. The Court of Appeals considered these contentions and held there was an independent basis for the in-court identifications and it was unnecessary to determine, in the first instance, whether the pre-trial confrontation was improper. The court also held that no purposeful delay was shown."