# John H. Bailey v. Walter Redman, Warden, Delaware Correctional Center, and Richard R. Wier, Attorney General of the State of Delaware

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · August 6, 1981 · 657 F.2d 21

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9468271

## Case

- **Full name:** John H. BAILEY, Appellant, v. Walter REDMAN, Warden, Delaware Correctional Center, and Richard R. Wier, Attorney General of the State of Delaware, Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** August 6, 1981
- **Citations:** 657 F.2d 21; 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 18710
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Meanor
- **Judges:** Hunter, Sloviter, Meanor
- **Cited by:** 27 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9468271

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding there was no Sixth Amendment violation where the defendant "fail[ed] to demonstrate that he was actually 'deprived' of his right to consult with his attorney"
- noting the recognized distinction between an actual deprivation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (which is a “predicate to relief”) and “the ‘prejudice’ that may result therefrom”

## Opinion text

MEANOR, District Judge,
concurring:
I join all but paragraphs seven and eight of the per curiam opinion. I believe that they are superfluous and that there is no need to discuss, much less reject, the issue of prejudice in connection with an instruction that violates Geders. See United States v. DiLapi, 651 F.2d 140 (2d Cir. 1981). In this case it is clear that the instruction did not deprive appellant of a right he sought to exercise. There was no objection to the instruction and there is no showing that, during the overnight recess, appellant desired to consult with counsel or counsel desired to consult with him.
I also add that in this case we do not reach the question whether Geders is to be applied in post-conviction proceedings to instructions during trials that preceded that decision. The Fourth Circuit has held that Geders is not to be so applied. United States v. Horger, 547 F.2d 1204 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 840 , 98 S.Ct. 135 , 54 L.Ed.2d 104 (1977). In this Circuit any issues concerning the retroactive application of Geders will have to await resolution on another day.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9468271. Public record. Not legal advice.