Opinion ID: 464654
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the propriety of the lineup

Text: Relying on United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967) and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed. 1178 (1967), Frisco contends that the pre-trial lineup identification held in the absence of his appointed counsel violated his Sixth Amendment rights and also made Washington incompetent for subsequent in-court identification. Before addressing the admissibility of the identifications, we must first determine whether Frisco had any right to counsel at the pre-trial lineup. The starting and ending point in this determination begins with the state's remarkable and obscure claim that Frisco was not entitled to counsel at the lineup because the state had not really decided to prosecute Frisco. This untenable position is contrary to well-established constitutional principles. An accused enjoys the right to presence of counsel at a lineup conducted after adversarial judicial proceedings are initiated. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972). In this circuit, a preliminary hearing marks the initiation of the adversarial process. Daigre v. Maggio, 705 F.2d 786 (5th Cir.1983). Here, the lineup took place after the preliminary hearing and without the presence of counsel even though unrebutted testimony in the record shows that Frisco specifically requested that his counsel be present. In fact, in this very case, the Louisiana Supreme Court has already held Frisco's right to counsel applied to the lineup. State v. Frisco, 411 So.2d 37, 39 (La.1982). Under such circumstances, there can be no question that Frisco's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment had attached making the lineup unconstitutional.