Document: 390 U.S. 377 88 S.Ct. 967 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 Thomas Earl SIMMONS et al., Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES. No. 55. Argued Jan. 15, 1968. Decided March 18, [Syllabus from pages 377-379 intentionally omitted] Raymond J. Smith for petitioners. Sol. Gen. Erwin N. Griswold, respondent. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case presents issues arising out petitioners' trial and conviction in United States District Court Northern Illinois armed robbery a federally insured savings loan association. 2 The evidence at showed that about 1:45 p.m. on February 27, 1964, two men entered Chicago One them pointed gun teller ordered her to put money into sack which gunman supplied. remained bank five minutes. After they left, employee rushed street saw one sitting passenger side departing white 1960 Thunderbird automobile with large scrape right door. Within an hour police located vicinity car matching this description. They discovered it belonged Mrs. Rey, sister-in-law petitioner Simmons. She told she had loaned afternoon brother, William Andrews. 3 At 5:15 same day, FBI agents came house Mahon, Andrews' mother, half block place where was then parked.1 no warrant, disputed whether Mahon gave permission search house. did search, basement found suitcases, disclaimed any knowledge. suitcase contained, among other items, holster, similar used robbery, several coin cards bill wrappers been robbed. 4 following morning obtained another sisters some snapshots Andrews Simmons, who said by sister have previous afternoon. These were shown employees witnessed robbery. Each witness identified pictures Simmons as representing robbers. A week or later, three these photographs Garrett depicting robber, witnesses stating not clear view second robber. 5 petitioners, together Andrews, subsequently indicted tried indicated. Just prior trial, moved suppress Government's exhibit consisting containing incriminating items. In order establish his standing so move, testified that, although he could identify certainty, owned, owner clothing inside suitcase. denied motion suppress. Garrett's testimony 'suppression' hearing admitted against him trial. 6 During all Three testifying get good look request under 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (the so-called Jencks Act) production before 7 jury Garrett, well guilty charged. On appeal, Appeals Seventh Circuit affirmed but reversed ground there insufficient connect 371 F.2d 296. 8 We granted certiorari 388 906, 87 2108, 1345, consider claims. First, asserts pretrial identification (by means circumstances unnecessarily suggestive conducive misidentification deny due process law, least require reversal exercise our supervisory power over lower federal courts. Second, both petitioners contend erred refusing defense requests eyewitnesses Third, urges constitutional rights violated when given support For reasons follow, we affirm judgment reverse Garrett. I. 9 facts claim are these. As has noted previously, day number There seem six pictures, mostly group others. Later their work, being exhibited each separately. photographs. later dates, again interviewed indeterminate numbers pictures. Again, Government introduce photographs, relied upon in-court eyewitnesses, whom swore 10 argument, looks last Term's 'lineup' decisions—United v. Wade, 218, 1926, 1149 Gilbert State California, 263, 1951, 1178—in first departed rule manner extra-judicial affects only weight, admissibility, rationale those cases accused is entitled counsel 'critical stage prosecution,' post-indictment lineup such stage.' See U.S., 236—237, S.Ct., 1937 1938. however, does time witnesses. Rather, simply procedure unduly prejudicial fatally taint conviction. must be evaluated light totality surrounding circumstances. Stovall Denno, 293, 302, 1967, 1972, 1199; Palmer Peyton, Cir., 359 199. Viewed context, find untenable. 11 It recognized improper employment may sometimes cause err identifying criminals. brief glimpse criminal, seen poor conditions. Even if follow most correct photographic procedures show individuals without indicating suspect, danger make incorrect identification. will increased display picture single individual generally resembles person saw, persons photograph recurs way emphasized.2 chance also heightened indicate pictured committed crime.3 Regardless how initial comes about, thereafter apt retain memory image rather than actually seen, reducing trustworthiness subsequent courtroom identification.4 12 Despite hazards photograph, widely effectively criminal law enforcement, standpoint apprehending offenders sparing innocent suspects ignominy arrest allowing exonerate through scrutiny use technique result convictions based substantially lessened course cross-examination exposes method's potential error. unwilling prohibit its employment, either or, still less, matter requirement. Instead, hold considered own facts, eyewitness set aside impermissibly give rise very substantial likelihood irreparable misidentification. standard accords resolution issue 301—302, 1972—1973, decisions courts question photograph.5 13 Applying case, conclude Simmons' score fail. place, suggested unnecessary resort instance. serious felony committed. perpetrators large. inconclusive clues enforcement officials possessed led essential swiftly determine track, properly deploy forces and, necessary, alert cities. justification method hardly less compelling justify 'one-man lineup' supra. 14 little utilized took well-lighted bank. robbers wore masks. Five able see robber periods ranging up Those while memories fresh. displayed witness. Apparently, consisted primarily appearing times series. alone anything progress investigation, suspicion. 15 Under conditions, None apparently prominent identifications confirmed viewings person. Notwithstanding cross-examination, none doubt respective Taken together, leave room correct, even though employed respects fallen short ideal.6 factual surroundings call authority. II. 16 next contended, event turned purposes cross-examination. 3500, Act. That Act, passed response Court's decision Jancks States, 353 657, 77 1007, 1103, provides after prosecution must, defense, produce 'statement * possession relates subject testified.' Act's purposes, relate 'statement' defined 'a written statement made signed otherwise adopted approved *.' Written statements kind taken Apparently thereafter. When produced pursuant claimed 'under 3500.' Judge requests. 17 theory seems incorporated witnesses, therefore 3500. legislative history Act confirm constitute part statement.7 However, record bear involved here therefore, producible appears time, acquired until day. Hence, possibly suggest quite apart refusal amounted abuse discretion. referred case-in-chief. asked direct examination eyewitness, requested 'multitude' stated might difficult particular indicated willing furnish found. Court, referring fact required would stop available. Although assistance doubtless preferable labeled kept available trial,8 amount discretion, Simmons.9 surely knew played role process. Yet attempt Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 16. sought explain why needed, argued Moreover, strength renders highly unlikely nonproduction caused prejudice. III. 20 Finally, contended reversible error allow guilt unsuccessful seized Mahon's contents. established suitcase.10 21 effectuate Fourth Amendment's guarantee freedom unreasonable searches seizures, long ago conferred defendants prosecutions right, proof, excluded secured unlawful seizure. Weeks 232 383, 34 341, 58 L.Ed. 652. More recently, held 'the exclusionary Fourteenth Amendments Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 1693, 1081. 22 assured Amendment personal rights, enforced exclusion instance whose protection infringed See, e.g., Jones 362 257, 260—261, 80 725, 731, 697. defendant wished assert objection possessor property possessory interest searched premises.11 avoid having resolve presented relaxed requirements alternative ways when, Jones, itself element offense charged, precluded denying requisite challenge admission evidence. alternatively need premises standing; sufficient legitimately occurs. Throughout justifiably, Government, proceeded assumption satisfied.12 premise, contends meet should admissible innocence. agree. 23 rules occasions, nonpossessory offenses, defendant's needed standing. serves example. evidently basement. only, natural, object testify owner.13 Thus, regarded integral claim. laid down below, assuming risk Testimony kind, links considers important enough seize seek often defendant. example, ownership few hours contain victimized undoubtedly strong piece him. Without testimony, hard prove suitcase.14 24 dilemma faced like extreme crimes, proves offense. eliminated Hobson's choice supra, relaxing requirements. never squarely charged relieved entirely.15 matter, exceptions agreed holdings below here, failed.16 reasoning succeeded,17 court decided succeeds excludable 'fruit' search.18 admitting fails voluntarily relevant, basis party.19 25 obvious knows deterred presenting testimonial proof necessary inhibition greatest known regardless outcome But jurisdictions admissibility depends motion, deterrent effect marginal cannot estimated confidence succeed. Since search-and-seizure claims depend heavily facts,20 since seizure state flux,21 incidence negligible. circumstances, evidence, linking him, risking connecting himself 26 merely impose condition deter asserting objection—it imposes always peculiarly sensitive. wishes do words utters incriminate allowed reasoned violation Fifth Self-Incrimination Clause because voluntary.22 abstract true. 'compelled' sense refrains forego benefit, involuntary obtain benefit.23 underlies choice: refuse benefit.24 applied situation 'benefit' gained afforded provision Bill Rights, undeniable tension created. obliged what believed, advice counsel, valid legal effect, waive privilege self-incrimination. intolerable surrendered another. testifies grounds, unless makes objection. 27 foregoing reasons, far respect remand further proceedings consistent opinion. 28 ordered. 29 Affirmed remanded part. 30 MARSHALL consideration case. 31 BLACK, concurring dissenting 32 I concur affirmance dissent shall discuss 33 1. chief 'pretrial (was) mistaken identification, law.' rejects contention. agree different reasons. rests lengthy discussion inferences drawn mere summary reading outlined shows concerned weight jury, raise issue. raised is, be, frivolous. present robbed contention revolves around them, relevant given. premise denial 'totality circumstances' believe Due Process vests wideranging, uncontrollable power. according 'law land'—the enacted Constitution Legislative Branch 'laws' formulated circumstances.' frivolous.* vote 2. assigns, commit declining permit 35 3. new reversing allegedly Amendment. suppression contained certainly overstatement saying 'was (Garrett).' Ante, 391. fact, go say along beyond barred offering truthful prevent winning acquittal false already sworn owns. My answer 'No.' 'Yes' claim.' 392-393. 36 me, disadvantages associated deterring significant offset advantages permitting probative help convict crime. concedes, relies play, most, 'marginal cases' estimate 393. value course, usually left unstated, reason ignored. high, so, lightly inadmissible. me importance bringing criminals book more crucial desirability giving every possible attempts invoke evidentiary can 37 leaves inadmissible compelled. Of accept 'testimony benefit.' 394. No Professor Wigmore thought subject, threat harm promise benefit render involuntary. Shotwell Mfg. Co. 367, 83 448, 463, 357 (1963) (dissenting opinion). poses bar acceptance not, fatal. self-incrimination waived, validity waiver undermined inevitable testifying, gives. stand hearing, validly 'compelled,' purpose. 38 consequence holding, encouraged come court, swear falsely property, knowing moment precisely opposite proceeding. lawless people play ducks drakes basic principles administration law. 39 language gives device hobble country. While provide procedural safeguards protect arbitrary convictions, governmental charter holds promises stultify justice erecting barriers justice. ethics morality secures telling truth advantage directly solemn judicial oath. lend prestige high name justice-defeating stratagem. 40 WHITE, 41 Parts II BLACK separate 3:30 guns forced ransacked identified, nothing. P. Wall, Eye-Witness Identification Criminal Cases 74—77 (1965). id., 82—83. 68—70. People Evans, Cal.2d 242, 246 P.2d 636. reliability If thus lineup, supplemented corporeal normally accurate. (1965); Williams, Parades, (1955) Crim.L.Rev. 525, 531. Also, probably snapshots, greater individuals, proportionally fewer 74—82; 530. floor Senate, Senator O'Mahoney, sponsor per se bill, '(i)f 103 Cong.Rec. 16489. 84 initially date He opportunity during opaque type showings. decide prejudiced failure grounds. objected pressed behalf here. mention instructed reference 262, 731; Edwards, Standing Suppress Unreasonably Seized Evidence, 47 Nw.U.L.Rev. 471 (1952). adoption 'police-deterrent' rule, Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 85 1731, 601, logically dictates unconstitutionally Comment, Object Unreasonable Search Seizure, U.Chi.L.Rev. 342 (1967); Note, Unlawful 1965 Wash.U.L.Q. 488. argument advanced it. taken, knowledge presence ownership. concedes marks outside Brief 33. '(The defendant) allegations holding 731. Heller 57 627; Kaiser 60 410; Fowler 239 93; Monroe 320 277; Taylor, 326 Airdo, 380 103; Lindsly, D.C., 247, rev'd 771. Contra, Bailey 128 U.S.App.D.C. 354, 389 305; Lewis, 270 F.Supp. 807, 810, n. (dictum). 277. Safarik 62 892, rehearing denied, 63 369. Accord, 93 (dictum); cf. Fabri 185. cited 16, Rabinowitz, 339 56, 63, 70 430, 434, 94 653. E.g., compare Warden, Md. Penitentiary Hayden, 387 294, 1642, 782 Gouled 255 298, 261, 65 647; Camara Municipal City County San Francisco, 523, 1727, 930, Frank Maryland, 360, 79 804, 877. 627. plaintiff civil suit prosecution. Wigmore, Evidence 1066 (3d ed. 1940); 2276 (McNaughton rev. 1961). Ibid. 'question presented' contention, declines 'supervisory power' methods. vain, think, ground.

Category: 0