Opinion ID: 1853439
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Were appellant's Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights violated by the prosecution's post-indictment photographic lineup?

Text: Appellant contends that the photographic lineup was not permissible because counsel was not present at the time Mrs. Stone viewed the photographs. In United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967), it was held that a post-indictment lineup reaches the critical stage of the prosecution which requires presence of counsel. Appellant argues that this rule should apply where a witness views a photographic lineup. The United States Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment does not grant the right to counsel at photographic displays conducted by the government for the purpose of allowing a witness to make identification [ United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300, 93 S.Ct. 2568, 37 L.Ed.2d 619 (1973)], and this Court followed that principle in Clubb v. State, supra . There was no violation of due process for Mrs. Stone to view the photographs presented to her in the absence of counsel for appellant, and this assignment is without merit.