Document: 413 U.S. 300 93 S.Ct. 2568 37 L.Ed.2d 619 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Charles J. ASH, Jr. No. 71—1255. Argued January 10, 1973. Decided June 21, Syllabus The Sixth Amendment does not grant an accused the right to have counsel present when Government conducts a post-indictment photographic display, containing picture of accused, for purpose allowing witness attempt identification offender. A pretrial event constitutes 'critical stage' requires aid in coping with legal problems or help meeting his adversary. Since is at time and, as here, asserts no be present, there possibility that he might misled by lack familiarity law overpowered professional United States v. Wade, 388 218, 87 1926, 18 1149, distinguished. Pp. 206—221. 149 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 461 F.2d 92, reversed and remanded. Edward R. Korman, New York City, petitioner. Sherman L. Cohn, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 In this case Court called upon decide whether Amendment1 grants whenever Appeals District Columbia Circuit, sitting en banc, held, 5-to-4 vote, possesses counsel. 92 (1972). court's holding inconsistent decisions courts appeals nine other circuits.2 We granted certiorari resolve conflict important constitutional question. 407 909, 2436, 32 682 reverse remand. 2 * On morning August 26, 1965, man stocking mask entered bank began waving pistol. He ordered employee hang up telephone instructed all others move. Seconds later second man, also wearing mask, bank, scooped money from tellers' drawers into bag, left. gunman followed, both men escaped through alley. robbery lasted three four minutes. 3 informer, Clarence McFarland, told authorities had discussed Charles Ash, Jr., respondent here. Acting on information, FBI agent, February 1966, showed five black-and-white mug shots Negro males generally same age, height, weight, one which was witnesses. All made uncertain identifications Ash's picture. At Ash custody been charged. April indictment returned charging codefendant, John Bailey, counts related robbery, violation D.C.Code Ann. § 22—2901 U.S.C. 2113(a). 4 Trial finally set May 1968, almost years after crime. preparing trial, prosecutor decided use display determine witnesses planned call would able make in-court identifications. Shortly before agent color photographs who previously tentatively identified photograph Ash. Three selected but unable any selection. None Bailey group. This post-indictment3 provides basis claim denied prosecution. 5 No motion severance Made, were tried jointly. trial judge held hearing suggestive nature displays.4 did clear ruling nature, demonstrated 'clear convincing' evidence 'based observation suspect than intervening observation.' App. 63—64. 6 inside gunman, they unwilling state certain their these Bailey. fourth witness, car outside seen fleeing robbers removed masks, positive Bailey's then sought impeach calling shown immediately trial. court failed identify During course examination, also, jury, brought out fact another robbers. point became concerned jury believe third person when, fact, After conference bench, ruled admitted evidence. constituted introduction prosecutor's request over objection defense counsel.5 7 McFarland testified witness. said plans later, results presence possess extensive criminal record history informer. 8 convicted counts. It reach verdict charges against acquittal granted. received concurrent sentences several counts, two longest being 80 months 12 years. 9 five-member majority counsel, guaranteed Amendment, violated attorney given opportunity displays conducted 1968 relied Court's lineup cases, 1149 (1967), Gilbert California, 263, 1951, 1178 Stovall Denno, 293, 1967, 1199 (1967). 10 issue suggestiveness; implies, however, order remand additional findings U.S.App.D.C., 7, F.2d, 98. refrained deciding could independent bases, id., 14 15 nn. 20, 105—106 expressed doubt origins. 11 Dissenting opinions, joined judges, disagreed decision requiring criticized majority's suggestion tainted defects Id., 43, 106—134. II exclusively portion providing, 'In prosecutions, shall enjoy . Assistance Counsel defence.' Anglo-American has rich historical heritage, regularly drawn construing guarantee Amendment. re-examine effort relationship between purposes risks identification. 13 Powell Alabama, 287 45, 60—66, 53 55, 60—63, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932), English common-law rule severely limited felony consult examined colonial constitutions statutes noted 'in least twelve thirteen colonies common law, respect now under consideration, definitely rejected fully recognized save instances capital offenses more serious crimes.' 64—65, 62. guarantee, thus, derived provisions designed reject rule. Apparently concerns contributed rejection very countless aspects imported. One consideration inherent irrationality limitation. proceedings, rusult, absurd illogical, misdemeanant rely felon, theory least,6 only questions proposed court. See U.S., 60, S.Ct., 60. writers appropriately critical inconsistency. See, example, W. Blackstone, Commentaries *355. concern lasting importance recognition awareness unaided layman little skill arguing intricate procedural system. function guide complex technicalities long Sutherland's well-known observations bear repeating here: 16 'Even intelligent educated small sometimes science law. If charged crime, incapable, generally, determining himself good bad. unfamiliar rules Left without may put proper charge incompetent evidence, irrelevant otherwise inadmissible. lacks knowledge adequately prepare defense, even though perfect one. guiding hand every step proceedings him. Without it, guilty, faces danger conviction because know how establish innocence.' 69, 64. 17 frequently interpreted assure 'guiding counsel' available those need its assistance. gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 344—345, 83 792, 796—797, 799 (1963), Argersinger Hamlin, 25, 31, 2006, 2009, 530 Another factor contributing accused's adoption institution public Continental inquisitorial commentator explained effect development: 19 '(E)arly eighteenth century American system judicial administration adopted (and some extent still is) unknown England: while rejecting fundamental juristic concepts continental Europe's procedure predicated, borrowed institutions, prosecutor, grafted it body (accusatorial) embodied Presumably, innovation about lawyers, particularly newly settled regions, increasing distances capitals eastern seaboard ever-receding western frontier. Its result that, virtually treason trials England suits private parties, faced government official whose specific prosecute, incomparably familiar procedure, idiosyncrasies juries, last least, personnel court.' F. Heller, 20—21 (1951) (footnote omitted). 20 Thus, motivation desire minimize imbalance adversary resulted creation prosecuting official. Black, writing Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 462—463, 58 1019, 1022, 82 1461 (1938), spoke equalizing Amendment's guarantee: 21 'It embodies realistic obvious truth average defendant protect tribunal power take life liberty, wherein prosecution presented experienced learned counsel.' 22 background suggests core 'Assistance' confronted intricacies advocacy prosecutor.7 Later developments led recognize less meaningful if formal itself. 23 extension events changing patterns investigation tended generate considered parts thes emerging significant events, confronted, just system, expert adversary, both. process expanding confrontations: 24 'When Bill Rights adopted, organized police forces we them today. him, marshalled, largely contrast, today's enforcement machinery involves confrontations where well settle fate reduce itself mere formality. realities modern prosecution, our cases construed apply 'critical' stages proceedings.' 224, 1931 25 consistently applied interpretation expanded new contexts appear presenting dangers gave birth initially 26 Recent demonstrate method expansion. Hamilton 368 52, 157, 114 (1961), White Maryland, 373 59, 1050, 193 required, definite consequences, enter plea. Massiah States, 377 201, 84 1199, 246 (1964), obtained, ruse absence incriminating statements. Coleman 399 90 1999, 387 (1970), preliminary uncounseled hope obtain so much benefit skilled 27 analogy unrepresented confrontation implicit mentioned above, explicitly Wade: 28 'The courtroom confrontation, State aligned sole unprotected overreaching, intentional unintentional, effective appeal judgment rendered witness—'that's man." 235 236, 1937. 29 Throughout expansion trial-like confrontations, lawyer remained essentially Court, continued act spokesman for, advisor to, accused. 'Assistance Counsel' meant namely, acting assistant. White, envisioned advising defenses allow him plead intelligently. 54—55, 159; 1051. advised client benefits Fifth sheltered overreaching 205, 1202. Cf. Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 466, 86 1602, 1623, 694 (1966). examining witnesses, probing making arguments light Alabama required hearing. 9, 2003. 30 rendering Wade companion cases. Although questions, offered opportunities advantage sensitive aware of, influences himself, better reconstruct remore disabilities precisely fashion compensated memory dimmed 'emotional tension,' credibility diminished status defendant, version effectively giving privilege compulsory self-incrimination. 230—231, 1933, 1934. compensate deficiencies found assistance 31 review demonstrates test utilized examination Against traditional test, consider Appeals. III Appeals' argument 'a major behind errors mike appeared alone,' concluded 'other forms prejudice,' give rise 101. These prejudice felt flow possibilities mistaken display.8 33 conclude identification, context incorrectly sufficient discuss difficulty reconstructing suggestivity, discussion occurred preserve compensating advantages authorities. 34 above easily allowed lineup. similarity apparent, needed render counterbalancing 'overreaching' 35 difficult consideration. changes lineups hearings generated argued lineup, forceful considerations mandate preparatory steps 'gathering prosecution's evidence,' such as, particular taking fingerprints blood samples. 227, 1932. 36 differences. Rather distinguishing situations terms equal time, times subsequent cure one-sided defendant. words, 'critical.' Referring fingerprints, hair, clothing, samples, explained: 'Knowledge techniques technology sufficiently available, variables few enough, Government's ordinary processes cross-examination presentation own experts.' 227—228, 38 structure viewed careful limitation language 'confrontations,'9 makes scientific precision inability are tests first instance. are, instead, can serve substitute confrontation. accurate reconstruction possible, remain, causes cease indicated cause confrontation: 39 'Legislative regulations, local departments, eliminate abuse unintentional impediments remove regarding stage 'critical." 239, 1938 40 262 n., 1950 (opinion Fortas., J.). 41 analysis complete ease That analysis, merely carries must provide Judge Friendly, Second Circuit Bennett, 409 888 (1969), 'criticality' context, drastic counsel: 42 'None classical analyses Black's 43 Zerbst Gideon Wainwright interrogating defendant's arrest; rather provided prevent falling traps devised side see proffered. Many interviews victim crime afford undue photographs; so, too, do defense's interviews, notably alibi witnesses.' 899—900. 44 undertake threshold addressed. IV 45 substantial departure necessary case. Brief Respondent 40, arises Similarly, used produce equality Rather, analogous 46 Even willing view broad generalized protection process, go far extend trial-preparation photography relatively new, interviewing predates 16th 17th centuries interviewed Holdsworth, History Law 226—228 (1926). counterbalance ability seek interview himself. 47 mechanism remains interviews.10 greater limitations placed constructing displays, seeking conducting applicable prosecution.11 Selection selection, will useful manner selection prosecution.12 case, initial tender suggest access removes potential abuse,13 inequality thereby satisfies spirit guarantee. 48 advanced compel observe procedures encourage utilize corporeal displays.14 improved suggestion. Simmons 390 377, 386 n. 6, 88 967, 972, 1247 (1968). Commentators techniques.15 49 Pretrial identifications, hardly unique offering actions unfairly Evidence favorable withheld; testimony manipulated; laboratory contrived. many ways accident design, improperly subvert primary safeguard abuses kind ethical responsibility prosecutor,16 who, often said, 'strike hard blows' 'foul ones.' Berger 295 78, 88, 55 629, 633, 79 1314 (1935); Brady 83, 87—88, 1194, 1196—1197, 215 (1963). fails, due standards. Giglio 405 150, 763, 104 (1972); Mooney Holohan, 294 103, 112, 340, 341, 791 Miller Pate, 785, 690 (1967); Chambers Mississippi, 410 284, 1038, 297 (1973). safeguards misuse photographs. 384, 971. 50 persuaded pernicious extraordinary required. 51 hold, then, reversal urged us examine standard enunciated 971, Appeals, expressing necessary, refused issue. decline question open, course, 52 Reversed STEWART, concurring judgment. 54 whether, indicted entitled person's asked guarantees '(i)n itself, stages' 'prosecution.' 387; 1149; 1178; 114. requirement 'prosecution,' means 'right attaches initiated (an accused). .' marks commencement 'criminal prosecutions' alone explicit applicable.' Kirby Illinois, 406 682, 688, 690, 1877, 1882, 411 (plurality opinion). indicted, thus clearly initiated, Constitution 56 supra, determined proceeding 'the meaningfully cross-examine itself.' 'critical,' essential 'to fairness Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 2041, 2054, 854; cf. 27—28, 2012—2013, (Stewart, J., dissenting). 57 post-indictment, exhibited identifying stage, fair irretrievably lost. hazard unfair influence which, proceeding, seldom reconstructed left doubt, thought, 'that 'as (of counsel) itself." 237, stressed appreciably heightened 'degree presents identification.' 228, 1933. There numerous subtle improper dynamic Wilkey, dissenting accurately described as: 59 drama, stretching appreciable span time. flesh, three-dimensional always full-length. Further, isn't there, acts. walks blinks glare lights, turns twists, muttering asides sharing spotlight. utter turn profile back, walk back forth, doff costume don another. potentially watching, detective elbow, ready witness' word reaction.' 17, 108. 60 With 'little drama,' convincingly discredit showing based impermissibly addition posed fluid pointed neither nor participants likely alert schooled detection. short, unfairness deprive attack 231—232, 61 therefore, primarily observer, ensure confront Attuned influences, what gone judge.* 62 quite different substantially fewer impermissible used, readily true markedly displayed, actual comparison description display. possible arranged manner, comment gesture single But kinds overt recount testimony. suggestiveness—and blatant reconstructed. Accordingly, foreclosed simply For reason, cannot fairly As Third aptly concluded: 63 'If live forced act, speak dress way, multiplied, minimized, permanent, viewing immobile reconstructible, subject suggestion, indelible face reason denominate present.' ex rel. Reed Anderson, 739, 745. 64 Preparing checking different, my view, Cir., 888, 900. While conducted, irretrievable remote, since occur usually flushed sessions appropriate justice basic affected 65 BRENNAN, whom DOUGLAS MARSHALL join, dissenting. 66 holds today unlike constitute constitutionally wholly unsupportable logic, consistency, indeed, fairness. result, I reluctantly another1 towards evisceration principles established six ago, dissent. 67 masks robbed Security Trust Co. D.C. minutes day none robbers' facial characteristics. Some 3, each group black white males, including respondent, weight. Respondent's included information informant crimes.2 'positive' respondent.3 68 codefendant relating 8, return indictment. entire two-year period although expressly person, never attempted arrange hours accompanied 69 incourt her photographs, themselves, implicating informant.4 70 appeal, respondent's conviction. Noting large measure identifications,'5 reasoned Gilbert, Stovall, compelled conclusion like attendance defence' attend eve trial.6 reasoning unimpeachably correct, therefore affirm. 71 trilogy 'lineup' sharp focus supra; supra. essence, (1) counsel; (2) per se inadmissible; (3) likewise inadmissible unless convincing prior reaching conclusions Those here detail, touch heart system—the 72 outset, 'identification peculiarly riddled innumerable variable factors seriously, crucially, derogate trial.' Indeed, '(t)he vagaries eyewitness well-known; annals rife Ibid. Apart identification,' 235, 1936, unreliable perception, '(a) high incidence miscarriage degree necessarily 'police intentionally accused.' 1936. contrary, '(s)uggestion created unintentionally ways.' 229, And "fact themselves have, committed offense persuasion communicate doubtful way .." quoting Williams & Hammelmann, Identification Parades-I (1963) Crim.L.Rev. 479, 483. 73 line-up conclusive identity, resulting innocent man. observed "once picked on, practice identity (in relevant evidence) practical trial." 482. 74 Moreover, mode 230, secret interrogations, depicting transpires ..' position detect 'improper influences' infect identification.7 addition, emphasized 'neither apt conditions prejudicial suspect. And, were, scant detection influences.' 'even precious context) absolute assurance accuracy reliability.' 75 mind, 1935. '(i)nsofar rest fruit helpless scrutiny deprived him.' noting 'presence (at lineup) avert trial,' (the 1937, 57, (1932). 76 recognized, forth identifications.' 100. To misidentification attributable faulty inadequate detailed during obviously great lineup.8 '(b)ecause photography, dimensions reality, properly inferior obtained P. Wall, Eye-witness Criminal Cases (1965). hazards photograph,' normally accurate' (1968).9 sense situation, manifold. 383, 970. Such derive sources. First, tend pictures differences pose, physical characteristics persons represented, variations mounting, background, lighting, markings singling accused.10 78 Second, inhere displayed is, 'increased among individual recurs emphasized.' asymmetrical pattern, sequence tends emphasize photograph, 'any stands reliable alone.' 81. Third, gestures comments lead select 'correct' photograph. 'indicate (he has) pictured crime,'11 ask 'looks familiar.' More subtly, inflection, expressions, motions, myriad imperceptible communication tend, unintentionally, compromise objectivity. lineups, '(i)mproper procedures, exerting erroneous 89.12 '(r)egardless comes about, thereafter retain image actually 383—384, 971.13 "the trial" 'seldom reconstruct' true, preserved 'it lineup; yet dos justify 9—10, 100—101. 239 30, 1938. preservation affords For, retention mitigate suggestiveness reveal subtle, dangerous, accompanying gestures. expose latter sources 'apt suspect' 'likely 81 Finally, reducing likelihood irregularities ever come light. observed:14 present—as lineup—he personally circumstances, report attorney, (if chooses stand) testify (I)n hand, verify irregularities. tempted engage 'sloppy biased fraudulent' conduct ., absent 'used." difficulties possibly than, involved lineup.15 '(t)here difference similar lineup.'16 situations, (pretrial identification) 231 232, create grave alabama, Ironically, seriously challenge proposition characterize triumph form substance, seeks engrafting unprecedented—and unsupportable-limitation apparently conceding attaches, ante, 309—311, deemed 'stage prosecution' must, involve accused,' 'trial-like confrontation' Government, According not, meet criteria. 85 support crabbed cites (1961). Admittedly, arguably involving counsel.'17 points out, consistent 'embodies Jerbst, (1938). But, contrary assumption, facet represent, boundaries applications broader understanding espoused premise underlying 'stage' 854 (1973) (emphasis added). arraignment counsel,' but, broadly, '(w)hat happens affect whole 54, 159. exclude would, effect, meaningless, 'deny 'effective representation advice him." 204, 1202, Spano York, 360 315, 326, 1209, 1265 (1959) (Douglas, concurring); Escobedo 378 478, 484—485, 1758, 1761—1762, 977 (1964). conception dependent seminal area, criteria Powell, defendants appointed until terms, appointment satisfy demands "(i)t vain accused) acquaint facts case." substantial'18 encompasses reasonable defense. Yet research despite efforts rewrite presidential analysis,19 rationale lends whatever decision. concluding participation violate self-incrimination,20 addressed indispensable Wade's most defendant—his cross-examined.' 223—224, 1930. surveyed specifically 'counsel's 'defence." Id. 225, Then, concerning applicability guarantee,21 once again 89 next contention gathering different—for various steps, systematized analyzing sample, like.' remotest intention embracing wooden ascribed today, pointing 'systematized analyzing' slightest hint approach. Instead, analyses, experts. denial Amendment; minimal risk counsel's 1933 91 discussing arising '(s)ince appears prejudice, capable 236—237, accused' Government. certainly notion offer 'guidance' trained existence implications transpire. Having witnessed preserving something ironic all. difference, applying well-reasoned principles, 898—900 (CA2), cert. sub nom. Haywood 396 852, 113, 101 (1969); 739 (CA3 1972) (en banc); Collins, 416 696 CA4 1969), denied, 1025, 601, 519 (1970); Ballard, 423 127 (CA5 1970); Serio, 440 827, 829—830 (CA6 1971); Robinson, 64, (CA7), 395 926, 1783, 243 Long, 449 288, 301—302 (CA8 1971), 974, 1206, 247 Allen V. Rhay, 431 1160, 1166—1167 (CA9 McGee 402 434, 436 (CA10 1968), 394 908, 1020, 220 (1969). banc Anderson overruled part panel Zeiler, 427 1305 1970). produced conflicting courts. appeals, rejects claimed e.g., McGhee State, Ala.App. 330, 264 So.2d 560 Yehling, 108 Ariz. 323, 498 P.2d 145 People Lawrence, Cal.3d 273, Cal.Rptr. 481 212 (1971), 2431, Del., 281 A.2d 142 (1971); Holiday, Ill.2d 300, 265 N.E.2d 634 Baldwin Md.App. 22, 245 98 (1968) (dicta); Commonwealth Ross, Mass., 282 (1972), vacated grounds remanded, 901, 968, (1973); Stevenson 244 (Miss.1971); Brookins, 468 S.W.2d (Mo.1971) Coles, A.D.2d 1051, 312 N.Y.S.2d 621 (1970) Moss, 187 Neb. 391, 191 N.W.2d 543 Drewry Commonwealth, 213 Va. 186, S.E.2d 178 Nettles, Wash.2d 500 752 Kain Wis.2d 212, 179 777 (1970). Accor, 277 N.C. 65, 175 583 Several courts, Cox 219 762 (Fla.App.1969) (video tapes); anderson, 389 Mich. 155, 205 Thompson Nev. 134, 451 704, 893, 189, 170 Whiting, 439 Pa. 266 738, 400 919, 173, 159 assert 1966 recognizes forecloses application initiation proceedings. Tr. Oral Arg. 21—22; 21. introduced exhibits. 44. agents cross-examined fully. 28. Two expected 65. 97 6. judges asserted reversal. Pet. Cert. 5; Under inclined disturb close 104, 126 131. 1836, relaxed practice. (1926); *355—356. Similar eventually abandonment England. orginated 'hardly necessary' systematic developed. T. Plucknett, Concise Common (4th ed. 1948). Confrontation developed attacking response unlimited argue questions. plea abatement directed insufficiency indictment, prisoner 'pray assigned manage exceptions more.' M. Hale, Pleas Crown 236 (1736). arose trials. Stephen, 348—350 (1883). 1695 corrected statute granting prisoners Wm. c. (1695). Hawkins king's motivated reform 'been experience disadvantages want prosecutions managed crown zeal Hawkins, 566 (Leach 1787). weakened narrowing application, abrogated 1836. Trials Felony Act, 4, (1836). '(T)he include, notably, mistake—particularly crime; suggestivity—even present; tendency witness's frozen. somewhat mitigated shown, went Sometimes suffice bring pertinent facts, offset infringement wrought avoids ineradicable.' narrowly defined issues consideration: known parade' 'showup,' either .. confrontations.' 229—230, (1967) overlooked inadvertence 334, O.T.1966, pp. 14, 19, 24. Duplication occurs. Defense statutory authority hearing, prevented duplication important. handwriting exemplars stage': 'If, unrepresentative exemplar taken, number 267, 1953, suggest, freedom excluded standards admissible substantive whereas impeachment. identify, Thus equivalent repeated characteristic promote balancing devices counteract possibility. reliability effectiveness impeachment access, explained, 315—316, evaluation substitutes designation stage.' Sobel, Assailing Impermissible Suggestion: Evolving Limitations Abuse Pre-Trial Methods, Brooklyn L.Rev. 261, 299 Comment, N.Y.U.L.Rev. 1022 (1968); Note, Rutgers Camden L.J. 347, 359 Syracuse 1235, 1241—1242 variant circumvent lineups. 44—45. E.g., Eye-Witness 77—85 (1965); 309—310; Iowa 408, 420—421 extends, supervision continuing By prescribing screening eliminating absence. read 'trial-type' understand thought informant, Clarance serving sentence robbery. 'McFarland grand regard separate offenses, them, confessed guilt. Assistant Attorney transferred D. C. Jail jail Rockville, helped McFarland's wife move Southeast Washington apartment near parochial school children attend.' 'had parole board behalf.' F.2d., 97. contend pre-indictment 21—22: noted, questionable credibility. 2, strong elements photo confrontation,' later.' 98, 105 20. undetected suspect, guilty experiences emotional tension expect accusers. abuse, reluctant stand open admission convictions. protestations vain; jury's choice unsupported officers 1934, brief glimpse criminal, poor conditions. subsequently follow correct incorrect 264, 296 Williams, Parades, (1955) 525, 531; Photographic Identification: Hidden Persuader, 419 Identification—A 'Critical Stage' Proceeding?, 1241 recognizing superiority custody, prelineup 'indefensible' quashing Rex Haslam, Crim.App.Rep. (1925); Goss, 196, 197 (1923). 410—411; Procedure—Photo-Identification—Stovall Prospectivity Rule Invoked Avoid Extension Right Counsel, 1021 maintains prosecutor' 'safeguard' 320. might, 'prosecutor' displays. eye-witnesses FBI, 'prosecutor.' 5, 96. adequate doubted all, human. His behavior fraught indeed unconscious nuances 'proper' response. 26—65; Napley, Problems Effecting Presentation Case Defendant, Col.L.Rev. 94, 98—99 (1966); Parades—I, clear, prosecutorial 'manipulation,' 'freezing' creates insurmountable obstacles 68; 12, 98—99; 484; 411—413; 1023. 24—25 O.T.1966. assertion, 317—319 somehow minimized 'duplicate' reflects misunderstanding Aside 'duplicated,' assertion premises Gilbert. like,' other. 1932; former 'duplicating' enabling analysis. 'duplication' independently Government—that tests. photographic. Due 'freezing effect' mark indelible. "he on." 229. reaffirmation misidentification. 'equality access' Government-conducted 'remove(s) process,' 319, similarly flawed. unitentional, so-called skewed sharply favor seems (to 317. illustrates readiness area ignore 'real-world' sake 'mere formalism.' 699, 1887. (Brennan, failure appreciate differences, outlined persuasively witnesses' procedures. Coleman, Hamilton, arraignments. statements should overheard federal notice lawyer, accomplice turned informant. 53, 58. 313—316. supports 'careful Wade) 'confrontations." Ante, 315. 'confrontation.' surprising, significant, interchangeably 'lineup,' 'confrontation' 'pretrial identification' descriptive facts. dissenters logically applies, employed 251, 1944 (White, 221—223, 1929—1930. 225—227, 1931—1932. quotation instructive: "The interrogation; (would be) hollow thing (if), purposes, already assured examination' 'One imagine cynical saying: 'Let illustrious now. They can't escape noose. nothing trial."" 226, 1932, 487—488, 1763.

Category: 0