Document: 394 U.S. 440 89 S.Ct. 1127 22 L.Ed.2d 402 Walter B. FOSTER, Petitioner,v.CALIFORNIA. No. 47. Argued Nov. 19, 1968. Decided April 1, 1969. Kenneth L. Maddy, Fresno, Cal., for petitioner. Doris H. Maier, Sacramento, respondent. Mr. Justice FORTAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner was charged by information with armed robbery a Western Union office in violation California Penal Code § 211a. The day after one robbers, Clay, surrendered to police and implicated Foster Grice. Allegedly, Clay had entered while Grice waited car. were tried together. acquitted. convicted. District Court Appeal affirmed conviction; State Supreme denied review. We granted certiorari, limited question whether conduct lineup resulted petitioner's constitutional rights. 390 994, 88 1201, 20 94 (1968). 2 Except robbers themselves, only witness crime Joseph David, late-night manager office. After been arrested, David called station view lineup. There three men One He is tall man—close six feet height. other two short—five feet, five or inches. wore leather jacket which said similar he seen underneath coveralls worn robber. seeing this lineup, could not positively identify petitioner as 'thought' man, but sure. then asked speak petitioner, brought into an sat across from at table. prosecuting officials there no else room. Even one-to-one confrontation still uncertain robbers: 'turthfully—I sure,' testified trial. A week 10 days later, arranged second that person who appeared first This time 'convinced' man. 3 At trial, his identification lineups, summarized above. also repeated courtroom. evidence against concerned particular testimony alleged accomplice Clay.1 4 In United States v. Wade, 388 218, 87 1926, 18 1149 (1967), Gilbert California, 263, 1951, 1178 held because possibility unfairness accused way conducted, 'critical stage' prosecution, must be given opportunity represented counsel. That holding does not, however, apply case, lineups occurred before June 12, 1967. Stovall Denno, 293, 1967, 1199 (1967). But declaring rule Wade applicable conducted those cases decided, we recognized that, judged 'totality circumstances,' procedures may 'so unnecessarily suggestive conducive irreparable mistaken identification' denial due process law. U.S., 302, S.Ct., 1972 See Simmons States, 377, 383, 967, 970, 19 1247 (1968); cf. P. Wall, Eye-Witness Identification Criminal Cases; J. Frank & Frank, Not Guilty; Wigmore, Evidence 786a (3d ed. 1940); 4, id., 1130. 5 Judged standard, case presents compelling example unfair procedures.2 police, stood out contrast height fact wearing supra, 233, 1935. When did lead positive identification, permitted between witness. pointed '(t)he practice showing suspects singly persons purpose part has widely condemned.' 1972. witness' tentative. So some later another arranged. participated 64. finally produced definite identification. 6 elements procedure made it all inevitable would 'the man.' effect, repeatedly witness, 'This Biggers Tennessee, 404, 407, 979, 980, 1267 (dissenting opinion). so undermined reliability eyewitness violate process. 7 decision handed down since declined consider reversed conviction makeup court said: '(W)e do more than recognize * unfairly constituted have past too often about innocent.' People Caruso, 68 Cal.2d 183, 188, 65 Cal.Rptr. 336, 340, 436 P.2d 340 present pretrial confrontations clearly make resulting identifications virtually inevitable. 8 respondent invites us hold any error harmless under Chapman 386 18, 824, 17 705 decline upon instance. Accordingly, judgment remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 9 Reversed remanded. WHITE, whom HARLAN STEWART concur, being unwilling disagree jury on weight evidence, ould affirm judgment. 11 BLACK, dissenting. 12 here directs courts set aside Foster's Telegraph Co. California. night telegraph company came just midnight, January 25, 1966, wrote note telling him holdup, put face, demanded money, flashed guns, took $531 fled. identified courtroom men, related crime. manager's disputed, corroborated man named State. these eyewitnesses proof committed prior city years before, when they company's office, presented employee announcing their gun, fled money. attorney admitted robbery.1 circumstances robberies appear practically indistinguishable. Such almost universally accepted relevant admissible prove same responsible nature.2 narration facts, falling lips eyewitnesses, onough, I am convinced, persuade nearly lawyers judges, unhesitatingly say, 'There enough guilt convict defendant since, according practice, indeed command, jury, judges.' Nevertheless looks behind witnesses stand decides criminal, Constitution requires reversed. Court, fails spell exactly what should happen if retrial, thus avoids apparently distasteful task specifying (1) new trial again hear eyewitness' in-court long refer previous (2) 'tainted' entirely excluded, acquittal. Objection ambiguity my reasons dissent. I. 13 declares compelled say judge know how proceed decide 'error' harmless. Of course, confession compelled, all. situation simple. For effect decided officers law 'arranged' led 'irreparable identification.' words, now hereafter can believe Since are order convict, corroborated, Court's direction means, suppose, dismiss case.3 dilemma, leads its ambiguous disposition points, think, harm done cause justice case. II. 14 Far fundamental, objection basic ruled constitutionally inadmissible whenever results considers "unnecessarily identification."4 proudest achievements country's Founders eternally guaranteed criminal cases, least until amended manner prescribed. Only last year Duncan Louisiana, 391 145, 1444, 491 (1968), emphatically over strong dissents, right States. course incontestable our judicial history sole tribunal weigh determine facts. means must, keep faith Constitution, allowed itself truth truth. It darkness night, weakness eyesight, factor impaired ability accurate To take power away rob responsibility perform precise functions most wanted perform. And certainly written preserve indispensable, unerodible core system trying included, hidden among provisions, slumbering sleeper granting judges license destroy whole part. 15 brings me theory relied justify invading holds that: 16 '(j)udged 'Judged procedures.' Ante, 442. deny circumstances' considered specific prohibitions violated, such, example, Fifth Amendment's command incriminate himself. Whether is, triable issue fact. compel himself, like issues fact, determined resolution facts 'totality' them offered evidence. Consequently legal formula posed application coerced agree it. not. Instea show 'unfair 'unfair' unfair. anywhere prohibit deemed courts. As recently Augenblick, 393 348, 352, 528, 532, 21 537 (1969): 'Rules designed interests fair trials. result sure measure unconstitutionality.' sets up own standards trials Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendments, provisions Constitution. Many relate use cases. provides shall compulsory obtaining favor. ordains obtained compulsion accused. confront him. ways dictates excluded improperly sufficiently reliable. give general authority require exclusion insufficiently Hearsay instances rendered Confrontation Clause, reflects judgment, Framers Bill Rights, such unreliable cannot proper perspective cross-examination repeating court. Nothing plan suggests drew Rights merely mention few types 'for illustration,' leaving full unconstitutional Justices might reliable subject exposure cross-examination. On contrary, held, leaves people questions concerning various advantages disadvantages admitting certain Spencer Texas, 385 554, 648, 606 (1967); Michelson 335 469, 69 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948). become fashionable talk governmental laws practices believes 'unfair,' contrary decency, implicit ordered liberty, offensive 'those canons decency fairness express notions English-speaking peoples *.'5 All different indefinable words phrases fruit same, poisonous, tree, namely, doctrine ideas fairness, forth, enforceable though precepts. incontrovertible limit define powers Federal Government distinguished divide separate Executive, Legislative, Judicial branches, accept premise grants except specifically it, absolutely necessary carry expressly granted. realize argue little difference views expressed below: One. No unconstitut onal unless invalidation firmly planted provision plus Necessary Proper Clause. 23 Two. unfair, shock conscience offend sense concepts liberty. 24 plainly tells believed based 'due process,' follow written, actually encourages basis conceptions justice. imposes 'restraint' beyond requiring best wise, just, well illustrates extremes both wise good. Although summon juries innocence defendants, deprives chance tell 25 began opposition fallacious concept process' even became member Court6 formally soon service began.7 emphasized quite belief meaning phrase existed 'decency fairness' doctrine. Chambers Florida, 309 227, 235 236, n. 8, 60 472, 476—477, 84 716 (1940). 26 My experience confirmed early test consistently III. 27 undertake pass Under holding, state question. 28 recent has, series Government. tremendous increase number involving federal questions, depend Amendment prevailing confessions compelled. kind review predict accuracy great destined come us, will many. Should invariable lower findings issues, likely find proccupied business appeals, condition devoutly wished interest administration general. problem magnified many times account taken harmless-error rules adopted, raise factual federal. If errors found along line arisen wi h here. posture law, simply defend pracice deciding instance error. necessity saving vastly important decide. least, peculiarly lower, highest, appellate Then, too, usually efficiently, fairly, local heard appeal. established try minor time. mean suggest ironclad always barring manifestly appears egregiously unjust undoubtedly wrong leave undecided. think distantly approaches steadfastly error, establish precedent passing below 29 above dissent reversal remand accomplice's corroborated. 1111. These convicted before. properly credibility parts prosecution's matter jury. teaching Gilbert, Stovall, leading defective Counsel felony assault intent commit rape, circumstance connection punishment. 560—561 7, 651—652, Chance, 92 Ariz. 351, 377 197 (1962); Nester State, 75 Nev. 41, 334 524 (1959); Mosley 211 Ga. 611, S.E.2d 314 (1955); 416 1940 1964 Supp.). case—his involvement type—is admissible. supra. doubtful conviction, although highly guilt, constitute corroboration testimony, within requirement. 442, quoting 1972, Malinski New York, 324 401, 417, 781, 788 789, 1029 (opinion Frankfurter, J.) (1945); see Rochin 342 165, 72 205, 96 183 (1952); Irvine 347 128, 74 381, 98 561 (1954). See, e.g., 81 Cong.Rec.App., pt. 9, pp. 638—639; 307. McCart Indianapolis Water Co., 302 419, 423, 58 324, 325, 82 336 (1938)

Category: 0