Document: 388 U.S. 218 87 S.Ct. 1926 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Billy Joe WADE. No. 334. Argued Feb. 16, 1967. Decided June 12, Beatrice Rosenberg, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Weldon Holcomb, Tyler, Tex., respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The question here is whether courtroom identifications an accused at trial are to be excluded from evidence because was exhibited witnesses before a post-indictment lineup conducted identification purposes without notice and in absence accused's appointed counsel. 2 federally insured bank Eustace, Texas, robbed on September 21, 1964. A man with small strip tape each side his face entered bank, pointed pistol female cashier vice president, only persons time, forced them fill pillowcase bank's money. then drove away accomplice who had been waiting stolen car outside bank. On March 23, 1965, indictment returned against respondent, Wade, two others conspiring rob Wade robbery itself. arrested April 2, counsel represent him 26. Fifteen days later FBI agent, Wade's lawyer, arranged have employees observe made up five or six other prisoners local county courthouse. Each person line wore strips such as allegedly worn by robber upon direction said something like 'put money bag,' words uttered robber. Both identified 3 At employees, when asked direct examination if courtroom, Wade. prior elicited both cross-examination. close testimony, moved judgment acquittal or, alternatively, strike officials' ground that conduct lineup, counsel, violated Fifth Amendment privilege self-incrimination Sixth right assistance motion denied, convicted. Court Appeals Circuit reversed conviction ordered new which in-court excluded, holding that, though did not violate rights, 'the held it was, already chosen appellant, violation rights * *.' 358 F.2d 557, 560. We granted certiorari, 385 811, 81, 17 53, set case oral argument 223, Gilbert v. State California, 263, 1951, 1178, 254, Stovall Denno, 386 293, 1967, 1199, present similar questions. reverse remand court enter vacating remanding District further proceedings consistent this opinion. I. 4 Neither itself nor anything shown record required do self-incrimination. recently reaffirmed pivilege 'pot ects being compelled testify himself, otherwise provide testimonial communicative nature Schmerber 384 757, 761, 86 1826, 1830, 16 908. there compelling suspect submit withdrawal sample blood analysis alcohol content admission report were compulsion those ends. That supported Holt United States, 245, 31 54 L.Ed. 1021, arose blouse belonged defendant. witness testified defendant put fit him. argued testimony error privilege. rejected claim 'an extravagant extension Amendment,' Holmes saying Court: 5 '(T)he prohibition criminal himself use physical moral extort communications him, exclusion body may material.' U.S., 252—253, 6. 6 Holt, however, aside any constitutional questions might involved accused, here, exhibit victims alleged crime; stated, 'we need now consider how far would go himself.' Id., 253, 6.1 7 no doubt merely observation prosecution involves give having significance. It characteristics, disclose knowledge he have. different wear blouse, and, instances, within cover Similarly, speak hearing distance witnesses, even utter purportedly robber, statements 'testimonial' nature; voice identifying characteristic, guilt. Schmerber, supra, distinction drawn under one between 'communications' whatever form, vocal physical, 'compulsion makes source 'real evidence," 764, 1832. recognized 'both federal state courts usually (the privilege) offers protection fingerprinting, photography, measurements, write identification, appear court, stand, assume stance, walk, make particular gesture.' None these activities becomes scope pretrial lineup. 8 Moreover, deserves emphasis presents admissibility implicates Government offered suc e vidence part its case, what came out about cross-examination II. 9 fact does not, dispose contention should Our rejection rested our conclusion '(n)o issue counsel's ability assist petitioner respect possess presented.' 766, 1833. In contrast, urged indispensable protect most basic defendant—his fair meaningfully cross-examined. 10 Framers Bill Rights envisaged broader role than practice prevailing England advising client 'matters law,' eschewing responsibility fact.'2 constitutions least 11 13 States expressly impliedly abolished distinction. Powell Alabama, 287 45, 60—65, 53 55, 60—62, 77 158; Note, 73 Yale L.J. 1000, 1030—1033 (1964). 'Though colonial provisions accord few things, they agreed necessity abolishing facts-law distinction; colonists appreciated stand alone state, foredoomed.' L.J., 1033—1034. This background reflected given decisions Amendment's guarantee defense. When adopted, organized police forces we know today.3 confronted prosecutor marshalled, largely today's law enforcement machinery critical confrontations where results well settle fate reduce mere formality. recognition realities modern prosecution, cases construed apply 'critical' stages proceedings. reads: 'In all prosecutions, shall enjoy Assistance Counsel defence.' (Emphasis supplied.) plain wording thus encompasses whenever necessary assure meaningful 'defence.' As early period arraignment 'perhaps *,' id., 57, 59, during 'requires guiding hand 69, 64 prove empty right. principle has since applied require type arraignment—for example, provided Alabama—where certain sacrificed lost: 'What happens affect whole trial. Available defenses irretrievably lost, asserted Hamilton 368 52, 54, 82 157, 159, 114. See White Maryland, 373 83 1050, 193. also Massiah 377 201, 84 12 246, thatin criminating appeared overheard agents who, defendant's meeting turned informant. said, quoting concurring Spano People New York, 360 315, 326, 79 1202, 1209, 1265, '(a)nything less deny 'effective representation stage legal aid advice help him." 204, 1202. Escobedo Illinois, 378 478, 1758, 977, drew rationale guaranteed point arraignment, subjected secret interrogation despite repeated requests see lawyer. again noted presence opportunity defense itself: 'The rule sought more appeal interrogation; 'right formal (would be) very hollow thing (if), practical purposes, assured examination'. 'One can imagine cynical saying: 'Let illustrious now. They can't escape noose. There nothing trial.'" 487—488, 1763. 14 Finally Miranda Arizona, 436, 1602, 694, rules established custodial included result finding safeguard jeopardized interrogation. 15 Of course, decided opinions cited links rights. Rather 'no (reflect) long ago Alabama 205, central addition trial,4 informal, out, derogate trial.5 security much aim guarantees Amendment—the speedy public impartial jury, informed cause accusation, compulsory process obtaining favor. confrontations, itself, operates interests will protected consistently adversary theory prosecution. Cf. Pointer 380 400, 85 1065, 923. sum, succeeding requires scrutinize confrontation determine preserve affected cross-examine effective calls us analyze potential substantial prejudice inheres avoid prejudice. III. characterizes preparatory step gathering prosecution's evidence, purposes—from various steps, systematized scientific analyzing fingerprints, sample, clothing, hair, like. think differences preclude characterized Knowledge techniques science technology sufficiently available, variables enough, Government's through ordinary processes expert presentation own experts. denial analyses therefore Amendment; minimal risk IV. But victim crime elicit peculiarly riddled innumerable dangers variable factors seriously, crucially, vagaries eyewitness well-known; annals rife instances mistaken identification.6 Frankfurter once said: worth uncontradicted? strangers proverbially untrustworthy. hazards formidable number records English American trials. These recent—not due brutalities ancient procedure.' Case Sacco Vanzetti 30 (1927). major factor contributing high incidence miscarriage justice degree suggestion inherent manner identification. commentator observed '(t)he influence improper probably accounts miscarriages single factor—perhaps responsible errors combined.' Wall, Eye-Witness Identification Criminal Cases Suggestion created intentionally unintentionally many subtle ways.7 And particularly grave witness' insubstantial, susceptibility greatest. 19 '(i)t matter common experience picked line-up, likely back word on, so identity (in relevant evidence) determined then, trial.'8 20 purpose take form known 'identification parade' 'showup,' witness, supra. obvious risks attend either increase inhering identification.9 interrogations, serious difficulty depicting transpires lineups forms confrontations. 'Privacy secrecy turn gap goes 448, 1614. For same reasons, seldom reconstruct mode judge jury Those participating often officers;10 event, participants' names rarely recorded divulged trial.11 impediments objective increased witness. Lineups prevalent rape prosecutions hazard victim's understandable outrage excite vengeful spiteful motives.12 neither participants apt alert conditions prejudicial suspect. were, scant benefit schooled detection suggestive influences.13 Improper influences undetected suspect, guilty experiences emotional tension expect accusers.14 Even abuse, reluctant open convictions. Moreover protestations fairness vain;15 jury's choice unsupported version officers present.16 short, inability effectively unfairness occurred deprive attack credibility 21 What facts disclosed specific illustrate revelation provides some striking examples: 22 Canadian men, Oriental. cases, black-haired placed among group light-haired persons, tall suspects short nonsuspects, perpetrator youth, twenty whom forty over.'17 23 Similarly reports, course describing admitted guilt, reveal numerous procedures, but witness,18 grossly dissimilar appearance suspect,19 distinctive clothing culprit wore,20 told caught after brought viewed jail,21 lineup,22 try article fits suspect.23 24 illustrated circumstances, insofar appear, surrounding three decide today. revealed taken courthouse seated await assembly faced hallway observable door. she saw 'standing hall' sight agent. Five hall. president hall custody agent 'resembled bank.'24 25 Gilbert, auditorium 100 several robberies charged wholesale other's presence, procedure fraught suggestion.25 Stovall, handcuffed officers. hard situation clearly conveying presented believed police. Frankfurter, 31—32. 26 surfaced existence attended strongly suggest plight defendants unable ferret confrontation. procedures designed accused. derive t suggestibility context Williams & Hammelmann, comprehensive studies themselves have, little committed offense, their chief pre-occupation problem getting sufficient proof, 'come clean,' danger persuasion communicate doubtful way Parades, Part I, (1963) Crim.L.Rev. 479, 483. 27 Insofar rest fruit helpless subject scrutiny trial, deprived essential confront precious cannot absolute assurance accuracy reliability. Thus context, pitfalls exist, first must prevention lessening confrontation, aligned sole unprotected overreaching, intentional unintentional, rendered 'that's man.' 28 Since appears prejudice, capable reconstruction avert trial,26 postindictment 'as entitled (of counsel) itself.' 60, 158. notified impending requisite absent 'intelligent waiver.' Carnley Cochran, 369 506, 884, 70. No countervailing policy considerations advanced requirement Concern expressed forestall prompt obstruction first, note today apply, prejudicially delayed leave substitute suffice notification suspect's delay.27 refuse recognize fear obstruct contrary assumptions operated cases. logic concerning interrogation, 480—481, 1631, 694: 29 '(A)n attorney exercising good professional taught. considering menace enforcement. He carrying sworn oath—to extent client. fulfilling plays vital administration Constitution.' view hardly impede legitimate enforcement; contrary, reasons expressed, assisted preventing infiltration taint indentification evidence.28 justice.29 Legislative regulations, departments, eliminate abuse unintentional remove basis regarding 'critical.'30 Congress authorities seen solution. hold 'in creates straitjacket handicap sound efforts reform, intended effect.' 467, 1624. V. 32 come required, held, grant excluded. disposition justified giving establish clear convincing based observations Murphy Waterfront Commission, 79, n. 18, 1594, 1609, 678.31 Where, involved, per se unjustified.32 Nardone 308 338, 341, 60 266, 267, 307. limited solely regard render one. used, crystallize witnesses' future reference. effect. unequivocal identifications, mention State's predicament found himself—realizing possible means probe dark attempt discover unfairness, while bolstering government bringing dwelling equip well, limiting impact disregards element 33 follows proper test situations quoted Wong Sun 371 471, 488, 407, 417, 441, "(W)hether, granting establishment primary illegality, instant objection exploitation illegality instead distinguishable purged taint.' Maguire, Evidence Guilt, 221 (1959).' Hoffa 309, 408, 374. Application consideration factors; act, discrepancy pre-lineup description actual description, another person, picture failure identify occasion, lapse time act which, lineup.33 34 witnesses. stated 'it certainty appellant intervening occurred,' 'may colored illegal (and) prejudicial.' F.2d, persuaded, part, 'compulsory verbal responses instance Special Agent.' Ibid. implies erroneous exclusion. 35 rco rd determination independent origin. although determination. inquiry properly appropriate followed vacate pending source, whether, introduction harmless error, Chapman 824, 705, reinstate order proper. Shotwell Mfg. Co., 355 233, 245—246, 78 234. 36 vacated remanded ordered. 37 Judgment direction. 38 THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins except dissents FORTAS. 39 DOUGLAS phase adheres dissenting views 772—779, 908, believes violates contained Amendment. 40 CLARK, concurring. 41 With reference I cannot, life me, why suspect—a prerequisite guilt—occurs stage, 694 (1966), books, arises, unless waived dissented am bound now, are. 908 precludes petitioner's join 42 BLACK, part. 43 respondent indicted robbing bank; arrested; 26, lawyer still custody, took into room courthouse, directed participate wearing used done let employee look purposes. client's interests. courtroom. objected when, cross-examination, contended forcing face, repeat (1) inviolation Amendment, (2) 44 rejects contention. From dissent. Parts II—IV opinion, sustains out-of-court concur. V, remands eup, concludes error. Appeals' reversal conviction, believe affirmed. 45 rejecting uttering police, relies recent taking man's convict compel himself. holding, 773, S.Ct., 1837, Court's reason Schmerber's 'communicative' evidence. both. seems quite me Self-incrimination Clause bar supply proof crime, precisely blood. simply over protest convicting crime. So awaiting could convicted words, criminal. Had Being talking equally violative Consequently, my personal 'unfair,' 'prejudicial,' 'improper,' prohibit 46 agree Court, large gives, notify talk denied Once again, points 'defence." 'critical stage' obtain crucial Besides in-custody assertion self-incrimination, for, advise conditions. 47 necessaryto 'fair trial,' trial' accordance 'Law Land' specifically Constitution. implications majority deems 'fair' assessing 'innumerable dangers' inhere it, thinks such. evidenced '(l)egislative regulations 'critical." willing dependent proceedings—though sense evidence—is trial.' wholly unwilling judges' vague transitory notions transitory, thought empirical, assessment 'risk (a defendant's) Ante, 228. 412, 1072, 923 (concurring Goldberg, J.). 48 ado place bolster harmful things. After oath defense, While stating 'a unjustified,' nevertheless incourt source,' tainted fruits invalidly 49 place, power fashioned unsound. 'tained fruit' considerable difficulty. practically impossible. How probing recesses mind draw sharp exclusively earlier memory lineup? kind 'clear evidence' offer events memories resulting rest? trials judges psychologists subconscious minds witnesses? All posed answered view, Amendments satisfied precluded using alternative corroboration If find justification stopping midstream lengthy 'tainted hearing. circumstances impeach exclude completely. 50 important, provision rely directly implication gives amounts constitutina l govern, Federal Government, crimes laws courts. Constitution deliberately reposed broad create according policies. Spencer 554, 648, 606. Before power, ask able express language grants fashion novel govern Berger 70, 1889, 1040 (Black, J., dissenting). 307, contexts,' supports demands 51 Perhaps presumes Fourteenth Due Process Clause. claim. Suffice say briefly authority undoubtedly tried Land.' prohibited Fourth, Fifth, written never subscribe dogma empowers declare law, including unconstitutional tradition, decency, fundamental justice, widemeaning See, e.g., Rochin 342 165, 72 96 183. abiding idea wanted day-to-day beliefs theirs, carefully defining prohibitions constitution. tell forbids allow proving Should so, feel deciding is, says, wise it. 'judicial activism' worst. free That, believe, prerogative. 52 affirm conviction. WHITE, HARLAN STEWART join, propounded barring wide spectrum probative ascertainment discovery occurs approach 694. uncritical doctrinaire satisfactory factual foundation. ruling dissent II, IV, V 55 far-reaching. proceeds creating law: violating buttress witnes b y previous Furthermore, admissible admittedly heavy burden impossible To intents barred present. 56 applies employed produce fortiori face-to-face encounter alone, regardless occurs, information. matters knows mother, brother, long-time associate, scene kidnap lived abductor category fleeting glimpse strictures positively corroborative showing 57 premise general unreliability difficulties observation, recall, recognition. assumes narrower evil rule—improper contributes identifications. apparently widespread prophylactic laid down, requiring detect recurring misconduct.1 share pervasive distrust official investigations. materials it.2 Certainly, bow solid fact, obviously reliable, survey current practices base rule. Until does, excluding Washington 14, 1920, 1019. 58 beyond assuming great country's departments following proceeding 'suggestion,' all, leads rather accurate reprehensible unavoidable undiscoverable impacton adequate learn appraisal treacherous assumptions3 resting notion aware, forget prevaricate, bring truth judge, appellate unacceptable occurring procedure. willingness citizenwitness dissemble, 59 aspects holding. First, commission Second, suitable legislative standards adopted thereby insist true, constitutionally acceptable follow? Certainly correct suggesting inapplicable safeguards. Third, barred, information defendant—apparently recordings sound-movies occurred. premised know, accepting inform. disinterested observer, recordings, photographs—any seem furnish identifies 61 least, truthful factfinding, doubt, information, tragic mistakes product consequence resolving evidentiay conflicts jury. obviate difficulties, measurably improved inserting investigative eyerywhere. 62 But, asked, interest militates lineups? goes, good, upgrade quality scarcely harm. feeble foundation fastening ironclad procedures. Absent reliably violation, enforce conducting affairs, displaced valid arguments merits emanating 63 Beyond this, invariable trenches One concern efficient laws. Identifications frequently arrest filed. probable wrong man. every secure immediate release enhances track. Unavoidably, significant delay all. convenient Meanwhile, file charges released bail, system recognizance, Nor ignored. convenience own. Many transformed control judge. Others safety date, especially knowing until really man.4 65 Finally, vulnerable terms unimpeachable increasing reliability testimony. 66 Law obligation sure innocent. dedicated making true crime.5 extent, so-called all; be. comparable ascertain truth. assigns mission. interested innocent, but, voluntary plea guilty, defend innocent guilty. evidnc e. Defense nothing, is. confidences client, case. confuse one, disadvantage, unsure indecisive, normal course.6 permits worst light, Undoubtedly limits observe7 can, telling truth, just destroy lying. respect, modified duty imposed honorable countenance little, any, relation search 67 extend system, presently operates, investigations Counsel's whereabouts. Some clients movements factfinding obvious. develop possibility hover begin menacing thoroughly fears do. implicit invitation manage best can. rule, defined role, contribute reliable My opposite result. fewer convictions, measure long-run acceptability. investigate includes private conversations consultations 68 Whether exercise supervisory question. matter, concur III respectfully register 69 FORTAS, 70 1. exhibition incident arrest, reasonable justifiable aspect arrest. affirmative, volitional action, duly available. 71 2. confident court. passive, mute eyes act—the cooperation accused—which historical permeter history tradition teach command mute. that; that. According jailed—indefinitely say, audience, Presumably include, 'Your your life'—or perhaps, assault intolerable system. completely advised lineup—and opinion; mean immunities. speak. incorporated 74 shield prescription technique guide investigation. History teaches self-accusation unreliable instrument detection, inculpate innocent-but-weak enable escape. end story. historically roots democratic religious principle. prevents debasement citizen 'accuse' state. deeper rack screw extrot confessions. relationship 75 An spoken disagree statement support this. controlling should, acknowledge binding effect prepared overrule authorized extraction veins human being, actively cooperate—to accuse differs assume, rebuffed latter feature places utterance squarely noble commandment. 76 permit indefensible. insidious doctrine invasion body, permits, man, defy faith discard profoundly cherished instruments freedom dignity individual. alter balance individual achieved centuries conflict. 3. holds meaningless important respect. Unless present, committing error.* Accordingly, below respondent's Weeks 232 383, 652, illegally obtained Adams 192 585, 372, 575, 'when exhibited, voluntarily order, too far, material, competent.' Beaney, Right Courts 8—26. 1040—1042 (1964); Comment, Calif.L.Rev. 337, 347—348 (1965). 114; 193; 977; 246. 4, supra; Avery 444, 446, 321, 322, 377. Borchard, Convicting Innocent; Frank Frank, Not Guilty; Cases; Wigmore, § 786a (3d ed. 1940); Rolph, Personal Identity; Gross, Investigation 47—54 (Jackson 1962); Williams, Proof Guilt 83—98 (1955); Wills, Circumstantial 205 (7th 1937); Science Judicial §§ 250 253 1937). 6, 26—65; Murray, Lineup Home Abroad, 1966 Utah L.Rev. 610; Napley, Problems Effecting Presentation Defendant, Col.L.Rev. 94, 98—99 (1966); (1955) (Eng.) 525; Paul, Indemnification Accused Persons, Austl.L.J. (1938); Houts, 25; 479—490, 54—5 55; Gorphe, Showing Prisoners Witnesses Identification, Am.J.Police Sci. (1930); Proof, 253; Devlin, Prosecution 70; 95—97. 482. 7. 57—59; see, Boney, Ill.2d 505, N.E.2d 920 (1963); James, Cal.App.2d 166, Cal.Rptr. 283 (1963). Identity 50: bright identity, parades, lifted leaving featureless unknown interest.' 545, 546; Innocent 367. additional impediment participants, many, lights shine State, 366 (C.A.9th Cir. 1966). one-way mirror heard. Rigney Hendrick, 710, 711, (C.A.3d 1965); Aaron 273 Ala. 139 So.2d 309 (1961). 7, 489; 99. re Groban, 352 330, 340, 510, 516, 376 difficult position attempting contentions blatant unsupportable allegations, controverted Shields, 628, 634—635, 161 P.2d 475, 478—479 (1945); Hicks, 364, 176 810 (1961); Hill, 193 Kan. 512, 394 106 Redmon Commonwealth, 321 S.W.2d 397 (Ky.Ct.App.1959); Lubinski 180 Md. 1, 8, A.2d 455, 459 (1941). anyone whom, Johnson 237 283, 206 138 instructive example Proctor 223 394, 164 708 (1960). Maryland salutary 'under unreliability.' 401, A.2d, 712. Against met, stated: as, judgment, call unreliability. relatively together victim) circumstance indicating fairness, officer remember appearances recall characteristics differed markedly looks Police Sergeant gave complaining indication thirteen men defendant; Sergeant's defendant) courtroom.' 53. examples 12—14, 30—32; 786a, 164, 42, 34—43. 170—171, 286 Fredricksen 105 U.S.App.D.C. 262, 266 463 (1959); Adell, Ill.App.2d 385, Seppi, N.Y. 62, 116 N.E. 793 (1917); Duggan, 215 Or. 151, 162, 333 907, 912 (1958). Crenshaw, 458, 460, 155 599, 602 Presley 224 550, 168 510 Ramirez, N.M. 72, 412 246 Bazemore, N.C. 336, 137 S.E. 172 (1927); Barrett 190 Tenn. 366, 229 A.L.R.2d 789 (1950). Bishop 236 Ark. 364 676 Thompson, 406 Ill. 555, 94 349 (1950); Berne, 334, 578 (1943); Martin, 304 494, 136 711 (1922); Clark, 423, 851 Gillespie 451, 454 (Okl.Cr.1960). Parham, Cal.2d 378, 497, 1001 48; 99: '(W)hile parades scrupulous parade Part, 486; Burtt, Applied Psychology 254—255. proposes model statute providing safeguards well: 'Most, attacks averted uniform modeled features civilian codes. p roposed Provision person. sign available inspection copying testing 'This ideal approximately height, weight, coloration hair skin, bodily types addition, nearly possible, dressed alike. garb similarly garbed. complete names, addresses, descriptive details everything transpired mandatory. include step, features, etc., sparked tests identical innocuous phrases, impermissible force act. enjoin viewer separately forbidden completed process. movie cameras recorders states financially afford devices. inadmissible.' 610, 627—628. Although divulgence whose want conceal. commonly concealment, masking fase. nations surround allowed solicitor friend, 98—99; Germany retained counsel; France forbid Spain, Mexico, Italy detailed prescribing occur supervision judicial sees officially 621—627. Thirty years Wigmore suggested 'scientific method' 'to hitherto proceedings.' 541 Under approach, films occupations, races, etc. photographed stock movements, hat coat, read aloud standard passage. filmed manner. succession special projection electric button activate board backstage pressed indicate hesitancy indicated presses. 540—541. systematic proceeding, bearing discussion fingerprint tests, III, handwriting exemplars Goldstein 316 114, 124, 1005, 1312 (Murphy, '(A)fter initial burden, satisfaction preliminary wire-tapping unlawfully employed, petitioners shift convince origin.' reach crime.' Such become opportunities 'kidnap abductor' value indeed marginal, Yet recognizes justify full retroactivity 449, 1614, O'Hara, Fundamentals (1956) text enjoyed extensive agencies students science. work author's service lecturer science, investigator. O'Hara improperly; argues O'Hara's shared practiced throughout land. companions, certainly lend assumptions. deemed light events. learned premises subsequent disclosure deals pure speculation. veiled, speculate 'unknown' 'innocent,' evaporates shortcomings sources protecting informants, McCray 300, 1056, 62. Attorney representative party controversy, sovereignty impartially interest, therefore, win done. such, peculiar definite servant twofold guilt innocence suffer. prosecute earnestness vigor—indeed, so. blows, liberty foul ones. refrain methods calculated wrongful one.' 295 78, 88, 629, 633, 1314. Mooney Holohan, 294 103, 791; Pyle Kansas, 317 213, 177, 214; Alcorta 28, 9; Napue 264, 1173, 1217; Brady 83, 1194, 215; Giles 66, 793, 737; Miller Pate, 785, 690. Trial 82—83. lawyers court? you reading dozen handbooks law-suit, experienced uses sorts stratagems minimize disadvantageous honesty timid, frightened unfamiliarity court-room ways, weakness, concealing facts. Longenecker, book Hints Suit endorsed Wigmore) writing 'truthful, honest, over-cautious' tells skilful advocate rapid ruin witness.' author hint disapproval accomplishment. Longenecker's books recommend prod irritable honest 'adverse' displaying undesirable unpleasant discredit 'You may,' writes Harris, 'sometimes adverse hostile You exaggerate unsay again.' Taft says clever cross-examiner, dealing egotistic 'defly tempt indulge propensity exaggeration, 'hang 'And thus,' adds Taft, happen produces suffers seeking source' although, add, decision turn. "An intimidating putting questions,' coerce disconcert answers subject. also, embarrassment, shame anger unfairly lead demeanor utterances impression produced real value." collected c. Countryman Finman, Lawyer Modern Society; Joint Committee Continuing Legal Education Institute Bar Association, Problem 1—46 Aspects Advocate's Dual Responsibility, 66; Gold, Split Loyalty: Ethical Lawyer, Clev.-Mar.L.Rev. 65; Symposium Professional Ethics, Mich.L.Rev. 1469—1498. conceivableth legislation meticulous satisfy requirements, 'remove (lineup)

Category: 0