Document: 406 U.S. 682 92 S.Ct. 1877 32 L.Ed.2d 411 Thomas KIRBY, etc., Petitioner,v.State of ILLINOIS. No. 70—5061. Argued Nov. 11, 1971. Reargued March 20 and 21, 1972. Decided June 7, Syllabus Petitioner a companion were stopped for interrogation. When each produced, in the course demonstrating identification, items bearing name 'Shard,' they arrested taken to police station. There, arresting officers learned robbery one 'Shard' two days before. The sent Shard, who immediately identified petitioner his as robbers. At time confrontation not advised right counsel, nor did either ask or receive legal assistance. Six weeks later, indicted Shard robbery. trial, after pre-trial motion suppress testimony had been overruled, testified previous identification companion, again them defendants found guilty petitioner's conviction was upheld on appeal, appellate court holding that per se exclusionary rule United States v. Wade, 388 218, 87 1926, 18 1149 Gilbert California, 263, 1951, 1178 apply pre-indictment confrontations. Held: judgment is affirmed. Pp. 687—691. 121 Ill.App.2d 323, 257 N.E.2d 589, Mr. Justice STEWART, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST, concluded showup arrest, but before initiation any adversary criminal proceeding (whether way formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, arraignment), unlike post-indictment confrontations involved prosecution at which accused, matter absolute right, entitled counsel. POWELL concurred result. P. 691. Michael Seng Jerold S. Solovy, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. James B. Zagel, respondent. Ronald M. George, Los Angeles, Cal., State amicus curiae, special leave Court. STEWART announced Court an opinion JUSTICE, REHNQUIST join. 1 In this held 'that pretrial lineup accused exhibited identifying witnesses critical stage prosecution; conduct such without notice absence counsel denies Sixth (and Fourteenth) Amendment calls question admissibility trial in-court identifications attended lineup.' supra, 272, 1956. Those cases further no 'in-court identifications' are admissible evidence if their 'source' conducted violation constitutional standard. 'Only can be effective sanction,' said, 'to assure law enforcement authorities will respect accused's presence Id., 273, S.Ct., 1957. present case we asked extend Wade-Gilbert based upon station took place defendant otherwise formally charged with offense. 2 On February 1968, man named Willie reported Chicago day men robbed him street wallet containing, among other things, traveler's checks Social Security card. 22, Ralph Bean, West Madison Street Chicago.1 produced contained three card, all Shard. Papers Shard's also Bean's possession. explain possession property, first said 'play money,' then told he won crap game. Bean 3 Only arriving station, checking records there, learn A car dispatched employment, where it picked up brought Immediately entering room seated table, positively earlier. No lawyer room, neither assistance, 4 More than six Upon arraignment, appointed represent them, pleaded guilty. denied, witness prosecution. described 22,2 courtroom 20.3 He cross-examined length regarding circumstances defendants. Cf. Pointer Texas, 380 400, 85 1065, 13 923. jury both guilty, affirmed appeal. People Kirby, 589.4 Illinois admission error, relying earlier decision Supreme Court, Palmer, 41 Ill.2d 571, 244 173, applicable preindictment We granted certiorari, limited question. 402 995, 91 2178, 29 160.5 5 * note outset privilege against compulsory self-incrimination implicated here. emphatically rejected claimed applicability guarantee Wade itself: 6 'Neither itself anything shown record required do violated self-incrimination. have only recently reaffirmed 'protects from being compelled testify himself, provide testimonial communicative nature . .' Schmerber 384 757, 761, 86 1826, 1830, 16 908. U.S., 221, 1929. 7 'We doubt compelling merely exhibit person observation prior involves compulsion give having significance. It physical characteristics, disclose knowledge might have. 222, 1930. 8 follows doctrine Miranda Arizona, 436, 1602, 694, has whatever issue us; exclusively Fifth Fourteenth self-incrimination, theory custodial interrogation inherently coercive. 9 rule, contrast, stems quite different guarantee—the Amendments. Unless semblance principled adjudication abandoned, therefore, decisions construing must look determining controversy. 10 line stemming back Court's landmark Powell Alabama, 287 45, 53 55, 77 L.Ed. 158, firmly established person's attaches judicial proceedings initiated him. See supra; Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 58 1019, 82 1461; Hamilton 368 52, 157, 114; Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 799; White Maryland, 373 59, 1050, 193; Massiah States, 377 201, 84 1199, 12 246; 1149; 1178; Coleman 399 1, 90 1999, 26 387. 11 This say itself. makes clear arraignment,6 exists hearing. supra. But point that, while members differed existence contexts some above cases, those points proceedings—whether arraignment. seeming deviation long Escobedo Illinois, 378 478, 1758, 977. apposite here distinct reasons. First, retrospect perceived 'prime purpose' vindicate such, but, like Miranda, full effectuation New Jersey, 719, 729, 1772, 1779, 882. Secondly, perhaps even more important purely practical purposes, its own facts, 733—734, 1780, facts remotely akin us. far mere formalism. starting our whole system justice. For government committed prosecute, adverse positions solidified. finds himself faced prosecutorial forces organized society, immersed intricacies substantive procedural law. point, marks commencement 'criminal prosecutions' alone explicit guarantees applicable.7 66—71, 63; Spano York, 360 315, 324, 79 1202, 1207, 1265 (Douglas, J., concurring). 14 import into routine investigation historically rationally onset proceedings. decline so. Less year decided, explained follows: 'The rationale 'critical prosecution,' stage." (Emphasis supplied.) Simmons 390 377, 382—383, 88 967, 970, 19 1247. depart today imposing concerning whatever. II 15 What suggest there may occasions during when abuse procedures. Such abuses beyond reach Constitution. As pointed out itself, always necessary 'scrutinize 227, 1932. Due Process Clause Amendments forbids unnecessarily suggestive conducive irreparable mistaken identification. Stovall Denno, 293, 1967, 1199; Foster 394 440, 89 1127, 22 402.8 offense, strikes appropriate balance between suspect protected prejudicial procedures interest society prompt purposeful unsolved crime. 17 Chief BURGER, concurring. I agree soon charges made becomes subject prosecution.' Therefore, join plurality judgment. 2009, 387 (dissenting opinion). POWELL, concurring would concur result reached 21 BRENNAN, whom DOUGLAS MARSHALL join, dissenting. After arrested, victim, table officers. robbers indicated were. prosecutor him, 'And you correct?' answered, 'Yes.' Consequently, whether, under (1967), error admit station-house advising present. held, context lineup, '(o)nly sanction principles case, reverse.1 23 concluding violate id., 221—223, 1929,2 addressed argument assistance indispensable protect Wade's most basis defendant—his fair meaningfully cross-examined,' 223—224, began emphasizing 'encompasses counsel's whenever meaningful 'defence." 225, 1931. reviewing 158 (1932); 114 (1961); 246 (1964), 1931, focused self-incrimination: 24 'In 977 drew guaranteed subjected secret despite repeated requests see lawyer. noted necessity opportunity defense ..' 225—226, 1931.3 25 '(I)n 384, rules included rested finding safeguard jeopardized interrogation.' 226, 'nothing decided opinions (Escobedo Miranda) links protection rights.' Ibid. To contrary, simply reflected 27 'principle addition need stand prosecution, informal, out, derogate trial. security much aim 226—227, 28 analysis led formulation controlling principle confrontations: sum, Alabama succeeding requires scrutinize pre determine whether preserve defendant's basic affected cross-examine us analyze potential substantial prejudice rights inheres particular ability help avoid prejudice.' 1932 (emphasis original). 30 applied purposes. met Government's contention 'a preparatory step gathering prosecution's evidence,' scientific examination fingerprints blood samples. responded latter instances 'the through ordinary processes cross-examination expert presentation experts.' thus examinations: 'they stages since minimal risk trial.' 227—228, 1933. 31 victim crime elicit peculiarly riddled innumerable dangers variable factors seriously, crucially, 228, Most importantly, inability effectively reconstruct unfairness occurred deprive attack credibility witness' identification.' 231—232, 1934. purposes following conclusion: 'Insofar rest fact fruit helpless scrutiny deprived essential confront And though precious cannot viewed assurance accuracy reliability. Thus context, so many variables pitfalls exist, prevention lessening hazards eyewitness fate well confrontation, aligned sole jury, unprotected overreaching, intentional unintentional, little appeal rendered witness—'that's man." 235—236, 1936. 33 conclusion specific case. 'Since appears grave prejudice, not, capable reconstruction often avert 'as aid (of counsel) itself." 236—237, 1937. 34 While should go saying, necessary, view today, re-emphasize require abstract consideration words Amendment. Counsel because inherent suggestibility identification,' 235, 1936,4 mean afforded 'most (of) 224, Indeed, expressly stated '(L)egislative regulations, local departments, eliminate risks unintentional suggestion impediments remove 'critical." 239, 1938; 239 n. 30, 1957, 1178. Hence, proceedings,' ante, 689, completely irrelevant order 35 plain, does attempt dispute it, inhere arrest5 identical 'after prosecutional proceedings.' 227. apparently considers assume probable cause, nothing part investigation,' ibid., justice,' 689.6 An according plurality, face 'with prosecutiorial society,' immerse 'in law.' consequences ensue, says '(t)he '(f)or solidified.' Ibid.7 If these propositions amount 'mere formalism,' difficult know how characterize them.8 arrest evidences belief perpetrator caught. post-arrest evidence.' primary, frequently sole, purpose accumulate proof buttress offender hand. offers reason, think none, post-charge results settle reduce formality.' 36 highly form employed underscores point. particularly fraught peril setting squad except officers, danger real understandable resentment lead too readily pair persons indeed 'It hard imagine situation clearly conveying presented believed police.' 234, testimony,9 safeguards therefore importance. demonstrates safeguards. direct examination, alleged courtroom, saw His lends strong support observation, quoted 229, 1933, 1149, '(i)t common experience once line-up, likely word later on, practice identity (in relevant evidence) determined then, Williams & Hammelmann, Identification Parades, Part I, (1963) Crim.L.Rev. 479, 482. 37 'decline(s) (the) rationale' Gilbert. Ante, 690. discovers 'rationale' consulting themselves, seem course, reading sentence 1247 (1968), right-to-counsel claim asserted considered. is, apparently, plurity discovered 442, 1128, (1969), Simmons, 'this possibility conducted, stage' given represented counsel.' Foster, moreover, although mentioned lineups information filed him.10 Instead, 1199 'applicable decided.' 1128. Similarly, (1970), another involving pre-Wade member significance held.11 38 examined same day. Stovall, arrest. Although 'was postponed until (he) could retain 295, 1969. plurality's terms 'before 690.12 Yet circumstance raised errors allegedly tainted us' 'provide(d) vehicle deciding extent requiring exclusion exhibiting counsel—are retroactively.' 294, 1968. affect future involve date. rulings inapplicable case.' 296, benefit new retroactively; denied 'been offense.' Moreover, retroactivity discussion, 296—301, 1969 1972, phrase 'pre-trial identification' equivalent less times. Not hint 'had (a) 684. fact, summarized (for identification) stage,' confrontations.' 298, 1971 added). 39 Gilbert, happened cursory perusal reveals turned circumstance.13 short, conclude rather 'declin(ing) 690, albeit purporting engaged 'principled adjudication,' 688, refuses recognize 'rationale.' my part, 'extend' arrest.14 Because about showup, 272—274, 1956, 1178, reversal. 40 WHITE, govern compel reversal below. thought Hampton, 'wanted' connection unrelated legitimacy stop subsequent 'Q. All right. Now, Willie, calling your attention call asking come down station? 'A. Yes, did. went what anything, happened, Willie? Well, seen me. Who policeman me up. 'MR. POMARO: Q. defendants? Do today? sir. Point please? one. (Indicating.) Indicating Kirby. correct? Yes. Did officer make whatsoever? 'THE WITNESS: No, didn't.' looked back, walking defendants, then? them. get good grabbed money, Both them? Correct. walked away Are fellows? Look Willie. you? You sure, Yes.' reversed. 332, 562. severely divided courts. Compare Fields, 104 Ariz. 486, 455 P.2d 964; Perkins State, 228 So.2d 382 (Fla.); Buchanan Commonwealth, 210 Va. 664, 173 S.E.2d 792; Walters, 457 S.W.2d 817 (Mo.), Greene, 139 U.S.App.D.C. 9, 429 F.2d Rivers 400 935 (CA5); Phillips, 427 1035 (CA9); Commonwealth Guillory, 356 Mass. 591, 254 427; Fowler, Cal.3d Cal.Rptr. 363, 461 643; Palmer Md.App. 691, 249 A.2d 482; Hutton, Mich.App. 312, 175 N.W.2d 860; Whiting, 439 Pa. 205, 266 738; re Holley, 107 R.I. 615, 268 723; Hayes 46 Wis.2d 93, 625. '(D)uring period say, arraignment beginning consultation, thorough-going preparation vitally important, sense, itself.' 57, 158. prosecutions, shall enjoy speedy public impartial district wherein committed, previously ascertained law, informed cause accusation; confronted him; process obtaining favor, Assistance defence.' U.S.Const., Amdt. VI. grant consider deprivation due particularized That remains open inquiry federal habeas corpus proceeding. There application harmless-error doctrine. reversal, remand afford oportunity demonstrate identifiation petitioner, was, 686 3, independent source. 239—242, 1938, (1967); (1967). asserts us.' 688. assertion against' accused. nonetheless erroneous, specifically relied establishing controls 'Excobedo here.' 689. 'apposite' Wade. 882 (1966), 'limited facts,' true, utilizes proposition ." reliance obviously, distinction either. implies such.' extended summary demonstrates. refers 'occasions procedures' '(s)uch Constitution.' however, solely 'abuses,' explicitly out: few surfaced reveal serious strongly plight numerous unable ferret influences secrecy confrontation. intentionally designed Rather derive 234—235, take custody, see, e.g., Bratten Delaware, 307 F.Supp. 643 (Del.1969); Cesarz, 44 180, 255 (1969); Moore, 111 N.J.Super. 528, 269 534 accidental arranged police, Pollack, 1168 (CA5 1970); Bibbs, 755 (Mo.1970), on-the-scene encounters shortly crime, Russell 133 77, 408 1280 Davis, 948 (CA2 1968). 477, 1629, 694 (1966) added): deal individual custody freedom action significant way. commences, distinguishing inquisitorial recognized countries.' concludes applicable.' contrary position speedy-trial Amendment: 'Invocation provision await charge. amendment arrest.' us, appellee charged, restraint indictment. event, transformed appellees 'accused' protections Amendment.' Marion, 404 307, 321, 325, 455, 466, 468 (1971). California eye toward world, establishment date accusation substantially indictment information.' 344, 370, 643, 650 (1969). card hours strewn ground alley. filed. January 25, 1966. lineups, within 25. 17. 47, O.T.1968, Brief Respondent 3—8. charged. July 24, September 29, October 1. hearing 14, indictments returned November 11. 72, O.T.1969, Petitioners 7; App. 84; 26, 2012 (Stewart, Burger, C.J., dissenting). adverted timing pointing 'about months assault seven petitioners' 2000. (Brennan, Douglas, White, Marshall, JJ.). '(p)etitioners concede (Wade Gilbert) ., invoke 3—4, Black conducted. reiterating 'should fully retroactive,' insisted petitioners court-appointed participated Alabama's failure Amendments.' 13, 2005. Nor Harlan refer expressing 'dissent refusal accord holding, 'lineup' Harlan's prevailing opinion, limit preceded unless derived source 'independent' viewing.' 2009. chain events night August 23, 1961. afternoon appeared morning noon 31, committing magistrate set felony never returned. 254, O.T.1966, 34. dissenters limitation: applies techniques produce fortiori face-to-face encounter alone, regardless occurs, place, 251, 1944 (White, Stewart, JJ., dissenting part). surprisingly courts.' 1881 citations reveal, five including refused Ranged five, least States. Singleton, 253 La. 18, 215 838 (1968); (1970); 482 860 Thompson Nev. 134, 451 704 Wright, 274 N.C. 84, 161 581 Isaacs, Ohio App.2d 115, 265 327 738 723 Martinez 437 842 (Tex.Ct.Crim.App.1969); Hicks, 76 Wash.2d 80, 943 625 (1970). addition, every Appeals 193 Cooper Picard, 428 1351 (CA1 Ayers, 426 524 Government Virgin Islands Callwood, 440 1206 (CA3 1971); 1968); Broadhead, 413 (CA7 1969); (CA9 Wilson Gaffney, 454 142 (CA10 1972). Judge Lewis, speaking Tenth Circuit, put last-cited case: returned; bar, surely asstance now arise attach return lodging Every reason forth equal impact projected atmosphere. hold considered.' 144.

Category: 0