Document: 434 U.S. 220 98 S.Ct. 458 54 L.Ed.2d 424 James Raymond MOORE, Petitioner,v.State of ILLINOIS. No. 76-5344. Argued Oct. 3, 1977. Decided Dec. 12, Syllabus. After petitioner had been arrested for rape and related offenses he was identified by the complaining witness as her assailant at ensuing preliminary hearing, during which not represented counsel nor offered appointed counsel. The victim asked to make identification after being told that she going view a suspect, his name having heard it called led before bench, prosecutor recite evidence believed implicate petitioner. Subsequently, indicted, appointed, who moved suppress victim's Illinois trial court denied motion on ground prosecution shown an independent basis identification. At trial, testified direct examination there certain other linking crimes. He convicted Supreme Court affirmed. then sought habeas corpus relief in Federal District admission testimony violated Sixth Fourteenth Amendment rights, but again identification, Appeals Held : 1. Petitioner's right corporeal conducted initiation adversary judicial criminal proceedings absence United States v. Wade, 388 218, 87 1926, 18 1149; Gilbert California, 263, 1951, 1178. It is difficult imagine more suggestive manner present suspect their critical first confrontation than employed this case if counsel, some or all suggestiveness could have avoided. And properly buttress its case-in-chief introducing pretrial made violation petitioner's even prove source. Pp. 224-232. 2. will be remanded, however, determination whether failure exclude derived directly from harmless constitutional error under Chapman 386 18, 824, 17 705. 232. 534 F.2d 331, reversed remanded. Patrick J. Hughes, Jr., Chicago, Ill., Charles H. Levad, respondent. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 Petitioner offenses. hearing State affirmed convictions, relief. We granted certiorari because apparent conflict between decisions below our holdings with respect identifications 1149 (1967); 1178 Kirby Illinois, 406 682, 92 1877, 32 411 (1972). reverse. 2 * question lived apartment South Side Chicago. Shortly noon December 14, 1967, awakened nap find man standing doorway bedroom holding knife. entered threw face down bed, choked until quiet. covering bandana, intruder partially undressed victim, forced commit oral sodomy, raped her. Then left, taking guitar flute apartment. 3 When police arrived, gave them description assailant. Although did know seen only 10 15 seconds attack, thought same offensive remarks neighborhood bar night before. She also notebook found next bed attack. 4 In week followed, showed two groups photographs men. From group 200 picked about 30 resembled height, weight, build. second 10, three. One these Police letter given them. Investigation revealed written woman whom staying. taken woman's home absence, appeared person access home. 5 On evening 20, held him overnight pending determine should bound over grand jury set bail. morning, policeman accompanied Circuit Cook County (First Municipal District) hearing. identify could. sign complaint named bench. judge charged deviate sexual behavior. courtroom waiting called, come State's Attorney stated charged. saw courtroom, pointed requested continuance time needed check fingerprints. fixed offer appoint 6 subsequent jury, indicted rape, behavior, burglary, robbery. Counsel elicited through unnecessarily procedure counsel.1 evidentiary 7 defendant prosecution's crimes Defense stipulated friend's home, presented might lost containing defense theory night, up mistake witnesses college lunchroom another part Chicago attack committed. 8 guilty four counts, thus rejecting alibi. sentenced 50 years prison. People Moore, 51 Ill.2d 79, 281 N.E.2d 294 rejected argument excluded, "independent basis" Id., 86, N.E.2d, 298. certiorari, 409 979, 93 34 242 (1972), writ contended rights. Relying transcript state proceedings, unpublished opinion, App. 31-35. Seventh ex rel. Moore 331 (1976), we certiorari. 429 1061, 97 783, 776 (1977). II 9 (1967), has stage entitles accused presence emphasized dangers inherent Persons conduct may suggest, intentionally unintentionally, they expect accused. Such suggestion, coming officer prosecutor, can lead mistaken predisposed adhere trial. 229, 235-236, S.Ct., 1933, 1936-1937. If accused's serve both client's interests objecting features influence witness' 236, 238, 1937, 1938. "variables pitfalls" exist uncounseled id., 235, 1936, Wade reasoned: "[T]he line must prevention unfairness lessening hazards eyewitness lineup itself. fate well confrontation, aligned against accused, sole unprotected overreaching, intentional unintentional, little no effective appeal judgment rendered 'that's man.' " 1937. 11 companion case, considered admissibility robbery committed elicit fact lineup. Nevertheless, likelihood witnesses' in-court were based observations rather scene crime, excluded unless "establish clear convincing upon identification." U.S., 240, 1939.2 12 differed one respect. recognized such would "enhance impact [a witness'] seriously aggravate whatever derogation exists fair trial." 273-274, 1957. Because "[t]hat [was] result illegal 'come exploitation [the primary] illegality[,]' Wong Sun States, 371 471, 488, 83 407, 441" "not entitled opportunity show source." 272-273, 1957; see supra, 240 n. 32, 1939. announced exclusionary rule belief sanction necessary "to assure law enforcement authorities lineup." Gilbert, 273, therefore conviction remanded 705 (1967). 274, 13 plurality inWade attaches "at proceedings—whether way formal charge, indictment, information, arraignment." 689, 1882. This so "marks commencement 'criminal prosecutions' alone explicit guarantees are applicable." 690, Thus, one-on-one stationhouse shortly suspect's arrest admissible yet initiated. cases, due process protects introduction of, tainted by, unreliable obtained procedures. 690-691, 1882-1883; Neil Biggers, 188, 375, 401 (1972); Stovall Denno, 293, 1199 generally Manson Brathwaite, 432 98, 2243, 53 140 (1977).3 III 14 instant argues marked him. Hence, Kirby, confrontation. Moreover, introduced case-in-chief. contends without regard source" it. took different case. read indicted. 45-46. reading cannot squared itself, rights attach proceedings," including instituted "by charge [or] hearing." commenced when filed court. See Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 38, § 111 (1975). purpose probable cause bind §§ 109-1, 109-3. oppose moving dismiss charges 109-3(e). faced State, summarized petitioner, urged marshal evidence. plain "the government ha[d] itself prosecute," "himself prosecutorial forces organized society, immersed intricacies substantive procedural law." candidly concedes "initiation proceedings" Brief Respondent 8, 1; Tr. Oral Arg. 34, hardly contend otherwise. erred andGilbert attached 16 suggested apply here "in-court line-up." 45. meaning statement entirely clear. meant procedure, distinguished lineup, subject requirement, mistaken. involved lineups, clearly contemplated required situations: "The take form . presentation .. obvious risks suggestion attend either .." 1933; 251, 1944 (WHITE, J., dissenting concurring part); cf. supra; Illinois. Indeed, greater E. g., P. Wall, Eye-Witness Identification Criminal Cases 27-40 (1965); Williams & Hammelmann, Parades I, Crim.L.Rev. 479, 480-481 (1963). There reason, then, hold requirements course proceeding, do agree. reasons supporting Wade's purposes equal force seconds, petitioner.4 Had avoided.5 sum, unpersuaded advanced distinguishing those Gilbert. Here, courts violated, Ill.2d, 298; 35 (District Court), 45-46 (Court Appeals).6 But "That illegality,' 1957, "therefore use benefit strict IV 19 violation, reverse remand That free re-examine issues petition, pass.7 20 Reversed 21 STEVENS consideration decision 22 REHNQUIST, concurring. 23 1964, limited circumstances persistent questioning suppressed repeatedly requested, denied, consult attorney. Escobedo 378 478, 490-491, 84 1758, 1764-1765, 977. time, intimations ruling rested largely guarantee stages proceeding. 484-486, 1761-1762. thereafter, perceived "that 'prime purpose' vindicate such, but, like Miranda, 'to full effectuation privilege self-incrimination .' Johnson New Jersey, 384 719, 729, 86 1772, 882." 1882, (1972) (Stewart, J.). Cf. Darwin Connecticut, 391 346, 349, 88 1488, 1489, 630 (1968). Accordingly, facts. 733-734, 1780-1781, 882 (1966); Frazier Cupp, 394 731, 739, 89 1420, 1424, 684 (1969); Michigan Tucker, 417 433, 438, 94 2357, 2360, 41 182 (1974). This, course, left open possibility examining voluntariness confession appropriate standard—the totality circumstances. Clewis Texas, 707, 1338, 423 24 I believe re-evaluate reconsider Wade-Gilbert* many reasons. established ensure accuracy reliability decide per se still Wade-Gilbert violations, questions involving judged 106, (1977); Simmons 390 377, 383, 967, 970, 1247 (1968); 302, 1972, However, since chosen press point Court's correct concur 25 BLACKMUN, result. 26 result, join remanding adjudged harmless. record conclusion seems me almost inevitable; that, instance. 27 feel, furthermore, out facts warrant. As points out, ante, p. 464, conceded, so-called 21, testified, so, ban applies require orders. With concession, need wrestle issue what place sense thereby possibly become entangled ghost, unmentioned Court, Coleman Alabama, 399 1, 90 1999, 387 (1970), determined retroactive inAdams 405 278, 916, 31 202 28 last word: disassociate myself implication twice appearing 222 229 something insignificant observation crime facial lasts "only seconds." Time, always comparative matter. Fifteen perhaps mean scores separate individuals participating riot. rapist midday female commission means insufficient leave accurate indelible impression victim. observe person's clock this. To resisting woman, seem endless. No period daylight observation, ever party degradation, literal dismissal, vital observation. explicitly drew court's attention recent (1967): "If look Your Honor, holding, requirement attorney ." Trial Transcript 132. Among factors making prior alleged act, existence any discrepancy pre-lineup defendant's actual description, person, picture occasion, lapse act 241, 1940. Ash, 413 300, 2568, 37 619 (1973), does views photographic arrays. A showing, unlike "trial-like confrontation" agents government; hence, "no arises misled lack familiarity overpowered professional adversary." 317, 2577. attending chance prepare presenting own displays "[d]uplication safeguard normally available occurs." 318 2578. An nevertheless protection displays. 320, 2579; Brathwaite; Immediately stated: "This allegation assault. It's invasion Hyde Park copulation. Taken instruments. warrant signed Judge articles, instruments apartment, clothes described attacked day." 48-49. appears although arrested, ones into Proceedings Hearing Feb. 5, 1968, 10; 44-45, 400-401. Neither clothing. For example, postponed arranged less setting. See, e. Ravich, 421 1196, 1202-1203 (CA2), cert. 400 834, 91 69, 66 (1970); Mason 134 U.S.App.D.C. 280, 283, 19, 414 1176, 1179 (1969). Short excused while recited, seated people audience attempted Allen Rhay, 431 1160, 1165 (CA9 1970), 404 116, 64 (1971). cross-examine test hardened. Haberstroh Montanye, 493 483, 485 (CA2 1974); Riffert Rundle, 464 1348, 1351 (CA3 1972), sub nom. Johnson, 415 927, 1434, 39 484 interest remain untainted, 1938, assume requests vain. ordinarily addressed sound discretion court, 1203; express grant requests. demonstrated selection array. parties how pictures actually selected ambiguity record, compare 110-111, 113-114, 167, 290-292, 294, 307-308, 421, 454, 155-156, 158, 231-232, think indicates photograph positive resolution factual addition argument, urges ; product Due Process Clause Amendment, denial prejudicial error, Roberts LaVallee, 389 40, 194, certified interlocutory immediate ppeal U.S.C. 1292(b).

Category: 0