Document: 390 U.S. 404 88 S.Ct. 979 19 L.Ed.2d 1267 Archie Nathaniel BIGGERS, Petitioner,v.STATE OF TENNESSEE. No. 237. Argued Jan. 15, 1968. Decided March 18, Rehearing Denied April 22, See 1037, 1401. Michael Meltsner, New York City, for petitioner. Thomas E. Fox, Nashville, Tenn., respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment below is affirmed by an equally divided Court. 2 Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. DOUGLAS, dissenting.1 3 Petitioner was indicted a rape committed when he 16 years old, convicted, and after trial jury sentenced to 20 years, first juvenile facility later prison. Supreme Court Tennessee conviction. Biggers v. State, 219 Tenn. 553, 411 S.W.2d 696. 4 On night January 1965, Mrs. Beamer at home sewing, intruder with butcher knife his hand grabbed her from rear. Her screams brought 13-year-old daughter, who, arriving scene, also started scream. said Beamer, 'You tell shut up, I'll kill you both.' ordered daughter bedroom, out house spot two blocks away raped her. 5 During next seven months police showed numerous photographs one which, she said, man who 'had features' like intruder. case lay dormant. unable describe rapist other than state fat 'flabby,' had youthful voice, smooth skin, 'sort bushy' hair. 6 August 17, petitioner, still only arrested another woman. same day station 'look suspect.' They petitioner doorway room where sat. She asked have him speak they told repeat words spoken rapist, 'Shut you.' Only did identify as her; testified that it petitioner's voice 'was thing made me think boy.' So far record indicates, time confrontation neither parents nor any attorney acting been advised intended meeting Beamer. 7 indictment followed. At what seen evening rape, but rapist. evidence connecting Beamer's station-house identification. not courtroom.2 identified size, bushy Three five officers were present identification over objection corroboration reaction confrontation. 8 This procedure violates, course, United States Wade, 388 218, 87 1926, 18 1149; Gilbert State California, 263, 1951, 1178. Those cases lineups not. Yet, though recognized suspect's right counsel critical stage, announced would retroactive effect. 9 Stovall Denno, 293, 1967, 1199, Simmons States, 377, 967, 1247, make clear, however, independent claim, may be 'so unnecessarily suggestive conducive irreparable mistaken identification' due process law denied used trial. supra, U.S., 302, S.Ct., 1972. claim falls within rule 'must evaluated light totality surrounding circumstances' view determining if so unduly prejudicial fatally taint conviction.' supra. 10 In Simmons, use rather lineup upheld because bank robbers large, FBI quickly determine whether on track looking witnesses' memories fresh since robbery photos pictured persons addition Stovall, single-suspect held hospital found comport stabbing victim, sole source identification, danger death—to conducted entailed perhaps fatal delay. 11 We such problem compelling urgency here. There ample conduct traditional lineup. crucial. stood free charge account it, dependent said. Whatever lineups, showing suspect singly victim pregnant prejudice. message clear: man. That carries powerfully thought. Even ability criminal severely limited normal human fallibilities memory perception. When subject shown singly, havoc more likely played best-intended recollections. 12 As noted, photograph, stressed crime while 'memories fresh.' 385, 972. Here, confronted sharpness recall being tested. too, emphasized witnesses 'in well-lighted bank.' Ibid. there '(n)o hall' assaulted; hall, assailant through kitchen 'no light,' railroad occurred illuminated moon. Indeed, best hall indirect nearby bedroom. 13 indicate which men suspects. hand, see 'suspect.' 14 Moreover, unlike case, here rested hargely voice. fact 'the immature youth,' words, merely put large class relate speech peculiar him. Voice identifications involve 'grave prejudice suspect,' Appeals Fourth Circuit Palmer Peyton, 359 F.2d 199, 201. No else could not; courtroom. young apparently previous record. shred against 15 Under circumstances seems plain maximized suggestion crime. Of always violated fail assemble one-man showup. Plainly here, highly atmosphere generated manner showup arranged failed affect judgment; presented alternative choices, 'there (was) then strong predisposition overcome doubts fasten guilt upon lone conclusion inescapable entire created constituted violation process. Since can question harmless error. Chapman 386 824, 17 705. entitled new unaffected testimony place. 272—273, 1956—1957. Negro, also, course irrelevant question. respects practice Justices setting forth their views Court, American Communications Assn. C.J.O., Douds, 339 382, 412—415, 422, 70 674, 690—692, 695, 94 L.Ed. 925; Osman 846, 847, 901, 902, 1328; re Isserman, 345 286, 73 676, 97 1013; 348 1, 75 6, 99 3; Raley Ohio, 360 423, 440, 79 1257, 1267, 1344; Ohio ex rel. Eaton Price, 364 264, 80 1463, 1464, 1708. Respondent contends in-court But portions relied do support claim. After described prosecutor her, 'Is doubt your mind today?' replied, 'No, there's doubt.' inference drawn current correctness station.

Category: 0