Document: 399 U.S. 1 90 S.Ct. 1999 26 L.Ed.2d 387 John Henry COLEMAN and Otis Stephens, Petitioners,v.State of ALABAMA. No. 72. Argued Nov. 18, 1969. Decided June 22, 1970. [Syllabus from pages 1-2 intentionally omitted] Charles Tarter, Birmingham, Ala., for petitioners. David W. Clark, Montgomery, respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN announced the judgment Court delivered following opinion. Petitioners were convicted in an Alabama Circuit assault with intent to murder shooting one Reynolds after he his wife parked their car on highway change a flat tire. The Appeals affirmed, 44 Ala.App. 429, 211 So.2d 917 (1968), Supreme denied review, 282 Ala. 725, 927 (1968). We granted certiorari, 394 916, 89 1200, 22 450 (1969). vacate remand. 2 make two claims this Court. First, they argue that subjected station-house lineup circumstances so unduly prejudicial conducive irreparable misidentification as fatally taint Reynolds' in-court identifications them at trial. Second, preliminary hearing prior indictment was 'critical stage' prosecution Alabama's failure provide appointed counsel therefore unconstitutionally assistance counsel. I1 3 which petitioners complain conducted October 1, 1966, about months seven before petitioners' concede since occurred United States v. Wade, 388 218, 87 1926, 18 1149, Gilbert California, 263, 1951, 1178, decided 12, 1967, cannot invoke holding those cases requiring exclusion identification evidence is tainted by exhibiting accused identifying witnesses trial absence Stovall Denno, 293, 296—301, 1969 1972, 1199 (1967). Rather, here conduct them. This claim must be determined totality surrounding circumstances. supra, 301 302, 1972; Simmons States, 390 377, 88 967, 19 1247 (1968); Foster 440, 1127, 402 4 At testified 11:30 p.m. July 24, engaged changing tire when three men approached across highway. One shot him short distance away. then ran up within or four feet. arose stooped position held wife, who had left watch worked. put hand Mrs. shoulder. Coleman. Within few seconds its lights approached, turned 'ran road * *.' As go, second time. He identified petitioner Stephens gunman, stating saw 'in lights' while 'looking straight him.' repeated cross-examination testimony direct; said Coleman 'face face'; 'I looked into face,' 'got real good look 5 pretrial motion suppress evidence, Detective Fordham spoken briefly hospital days weeks later, neither occasion able much information assailants. gave vague description—that attackers 'young, black males, close same age height.' are both Negro; but 6 , Coleman, 28 1/2 . However, also time description considerable pain, consequently questioning very brief. detective further stated did not identify any assailants mug shots, it does appear whether pictures among shown him. Hart request police. spontaneously formal even began. '(T)he six brought warden, stage, Stephens—he didn't get number one, being assailants.' similar testimony: 'As soon stepped inside door—I hadn't seen previous until door, I recognized *. Just said, 'That man, there, one; me." could act made participants speak certain words used attackers. admitted tell later during lineup, recall told spoke words. It record court erred finding stem procedure 'so impermissibly suggestive give rise substantial likelihood misidentification.' 384, 971. Indeed, find adduced suppression entirely based upon observations all induced lineup. There no merit arguments offered contrary conclusion. 7 police asked go city jail 'took (it) granted' caught But utterly devoid anything prompted virtually spontaneous proceeding got under way. 8 next contend unfair because codefendant only ones required say some conflict point. Petitioner In case, either anything, require other aid influence identifications. 9 Finally, contends unfairly singled out wear hat though bareheaded. worn hat. Although demonstrates fact nothing shows do so. Moreover, remembered assault. On contrary, conclude 'asked take off, move back,' wanted see Coleman's face more clearly. II2 10 has person crime 'requires guiding every step proceedings against him,' Powell Alabama, 287 45, 69, 53 55, 64, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932), constitutional principle limited presence 'It central addition counsel's trial, guaranteed need stand alone State stage prosecution, informal, out, where might derogate accused's right fair trial.' 226, 1932. Accordingly, 'the succeeding requires we scrutinize confrontation determine necessary preserve defendant's basic affected meaningfully cross-examine have effective itself. calls us analyze potential prejudice rights inheres particular ability help avoid prejudice.' Id., 227, Applying test, stages' include type arraignment may sacrificed lost, Hamilton 368 52, 54, 82 157, 158—159, 114 (1961), White Maryland, 373 59, 83 1050, 193 (1963), supra; supra. Cf. Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966), privilege compulsory self-incrimination includes custodial interrogation. See Massiah 377 201, 84 1199, 12 246 (1964). 11 prosecution. prosecutor seek directly grand jury without hearing. Ex parte Campbell, 278 114, 176 242 (1965). opinion case instructs law sole purposes there sufficient warrant presenting and, if so, fix bail offense bailable. Ala.App., 433, So.2d, 920. Code, Tit. 15, §§ 139, 140, 151.3 continued: 'At advance defenses, preclude availing himself defense case. Also Pointer Texas (380 400, 85 1065, 13 923 (1965)) bars admission given benefit through Thus, occurring can substantially 921. course bound construction governing law, Kingsley International Pictures Corp. Regents University New York, 360 684, 688, 79 1362, 1365, 1512 (1959); Albertson Millard, 345 242, 244, 73 600, 601—602, 97 983 (1953). lawyer courts prohibit State's use hearing, follow criminal process. determination provision depends, noted, analysis 'whether Plainly essential protect indigent erroneous improper lawyer's skilled examination expose fatal weaknesses lead magistrate refuse bind over. event, interrogation experienced fashion vital impeachment tool favorable witness Third, trained effectively discover client possible preparation proper meet Fourth, influential making such matters necessity early psychiatric bail. 14 inability own realize these advantages compels conclusion process 'as entitled (of counsel) itself.' 57, 60. III4 15 remains, then, question relief entitled. transcript indicates prohibition scrupulously observed.5 otherwise prejudiced That inquiry first instance should properly courts. test applied denial harmless error Chapman 386 824, 17 705 1940. accordingly convictions remand inconsistent deem appropriate error, 272, 1956, reinstated new ordered. Convictions vacated remanded directions. BLACKMUN took part consideration decision 20 BLACK, concurring. 21 wholeheartedly agree Part II prevailing grants defendants. purpose been committed probable cause charging defendant offense. If finds offense, must, incarcerated cause, released custody. Ala.Code, 139—140. definite plain language Sixth Amendment '(i)n prosecutions, shall enjoy Assistance Counsel defence.' attorney experience representing defendants knows—sometimes sad experience—that adequate representation present interests client. practical importance discussed opinion, considerations outlined seem me than compel afforded meaningful Bill Rights. fear seems times proceed premise ultimately stake Fourteenth Amendments rather 'fair trial' conceived judges. While phrase appealing Rights nor Constitution contains it. pragmatic, government-fearing authors our not, think wisely vague, indefinite, elastic language. Instead, provided clear, emphatic guarantees: defense, speedy jury, him, unequivocal rights. explicit commands full kind guarantees, my document leaves room judges add detract commands. unauthorized judicial toying carefully selected Constitution, wisest best charter government existence. declares man charged defend throughout entire declare, fairness defense.' For still prefer trust liberty citizen sense 23 rejecting victim suppressed. relies mainly (1967), incourt suppressed Due Process Clause 'unnecessarily suggestive' dissented partly ground majority's rule classic example Court's using write notions fairness, decency, fundamental justice, total disregard argued declared day 1149 fully retroactive. U.S., 303, S.Ct., 1973. believe pre-Wade court-appointed participated violated Amendments. reasons separate 243, 1940—1941, requirements Fifth satisfied prosecutors declined introduce evidence. concur err permitting courtroom previously 24 stated, 25 DOUGLAS. joined BRENNAN'S word why strict result reached. 27 critical are: 'In BLACK states, 'a Alabama.' A 'criminal prosecution' certainly start starts. commencement sense, indigents would likely Lawyers prepare defense. needs investigations procedures investigation timely telling. shorthand expression describe phase Amendment. controls, ideas what efficient code provide. nearly 200 years doubt decide meaning never reached case-by-case approach available 'case' 'controversy' jurisdiction Article III Constitution. adhere mandate merely appeals personal tastes sit here, read terms light realities prosecutions' truly mean. 29 impressed experiences various Russian journeys. nation detention incommunicado common practice, period permissible now extends nine months.1 Where interrogation, clear takes place long formalities commence. apparent attends trials Russia. Those viewed issue guilt; guilt resolved inner precincts prison concerned punishment. 30 Custodial practice—here nations—so strained narrow phase. My brother Harlan dissent 513, 1648, 694, called cited majority 'linchpins' ruling counsel.2 They such, although main emphasis exact incriminating statements3 Like obviously honors—if guide. 31 WHITE, 32 HARLAN recent furnish ample event progress join hesitation appointment fewer hearings jurisdictions free taking jury. Our invite eliminating system entirely. 33 expect application harmless-error standard produce results approximating contemplated HARLAN's separately views. Whether denying beyond reasonable depends assessment factors error. ignore tried found guilty 34 possibility detected preclusive flaws probable-cause showing mooted produced satisfying doubt. Also, wholly speculative assume (1) inconsistently (2) counsel, known actually went different. So too extremely unlikely related ever raise doubts integrity 35 remains possibility, suggests, important unavailable preserved opposing examine 36 HARLAN, concurring dissenting part. 37 felt consider clean slate voted affirm convictions.* But—in lengths carried decisions (1966); (1967); 1178 Mathis 391 1503, 381 Orozco Texas, 324, 1095, 311 (1969)—I open due regard way adjudicatory Court, conceive it, work. continuing viability just decision, arises recently expressed elsewhere. Baldwin today, 117, 1914, 437, concuring Welsh 398 333, 344, 1792, 1798, 308 (1970). 38 Accordingly am constrained refused appoint represent dissent, however, issue, well refusal accord Wade connection 'lineup' contentions. 39 indeed strange having suspect stages 'in-custody' investigation, station house (Miranda) home (Orozco), hold fend courtroom. 40 While, referred to, escape scope broad amorphous. reversal convictions, lack unless show irretrievably lost virtue affirmative regard, course, erroneously excluded testimony, weight constitute 'exclusion' reversible demonstrate actual presented mere speculation better suffice vitiate conviction. leave sort speculation. 41 Despite disagreement holding, identification. action applicable lineups date taken before. explained Desist 256, 1030, 1037, 248 (1969), longer 'retroactivity' doctrine direct review. situation judge Wade. 42 preceded represented derived source 'independent' viewing. Such instance, court. send back score too. 43 Chief BURGER (dissenting). matter sound policy persons statute rulemaking accept notion prosecution.'1 STEWART, whose join, WHITE each noted difficulties, grounds, today's set forth additional dissent.2 45 Certainly, suggest, itself contemplates reached; unlike them, acquiesce holdings purportedly, nonetheless erroneously, simply acknowledgment amended feels action. rely solely 183 interpretation, odd business centuries 'discover' Here excuse conditions changed; ancient institution. 46 With deference, reject categorically WHITE's thesis lately controls over deference will employing bootstrap ourselves result, objective hearings. By placing premium 'recent cases' makes dangerously simple future Courts, technique operate 'continuing Constitutional convention.' 47 wish directed primarily reasoning process, social legal desirability desirable one. many studies, including American Bar Association's Criminal Project, acknowledge wisdom providing ABA Project Standards Justice, Providing Defense Services § 5.1 (Approved Draft 1968). rule-making joining reservations, belies essence states case.' (Emphasis added.) 48 furnished case,' another story, not. contrast variety verbal combinations employed justify disposition, laudable precision that: Counsel.' relevant prosecution,' inventing formula seeks reshape accordance predilections deemed desirable. interpretation easy matter, especially cautious substituting Framers. heed Black's admonition difference between written Founders unwritten constitution formulated according basis.' North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 744, 2072, 2085, 656 (1969) (separate Black, J.) (emphasis original). 49 federal courts, most steps arrest Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 5(c); inquiry; (3) 10. know, officer concludes permitted attend latter proceedings. returns indictment, enter plea arraignment, (1961). 50 system, arrested discharged whether, submit authority consideration. No verdict flow magistrate's determination, discharge, acquittal, bar indictment. Thus lawyers term. indict; pass warranted. Recognizing unimportant already disclosures uncounseled tried. (1963). 380 51 Under thus something anomaly 'discovery' constitutionally subsequent inquiry, witnesses, eventually charged, interrogated secret session. current mode subscribed hearings, how reconciled permit decidely 'critical' inquiry? 52 pointed protected statements inadmissible fails explain salutary—indeed drastic—remedy protection doing—surreptitiously—is convert discovery device. largely dissipated proposed amendments cases. Judicial Conference Committee Rules Practice Procedure, Proposed Federal Procedure District Courts (preliminary draft, Jan. 1970). whom joins, dissenting. 54 night 1966 Casey stopped Green Springs Highway order accosted evident armed robbery rape. twice frightened away passing automobile. Some arrested, assaulted wife. 55 county judge. plea. bailable.1 bond $10,000. 56 Less month returned petitioners, commit murder. Promptly entered guilty. 114. again Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 792, 799. sentenced penitentiary. 57 quite aside. 193. happen Or statement likewise aside convictions. 923. either. For, today perforce concedes, observed.' 58 Nevertheless, sets because, says, None relied points result. Even 'pretrial interrogation.' guarantee prohibits introduction 'guidelines' followed. 694. 1149; 1178. And repeat done introduced 59 holds much, seems, assure led 'refuse over.' 'effective bail.' 60 provided, elementary logic held, relief, would, indictments, orders fixing binding Since trial2 doubt, understandably boggles logical consequences therein. refrains, short, turning clock ordering remands ordered,' quixotic. 61 alleged happened affirmatively advantage enjoyed 62 Therefore, burden prejudiced, met futile gesture. If, hand, disprove conceivably either, reverse All figure supposed perceptiveness far exceed mine. 63 completed hold, therefore, deprived Douglas, White, Marshall I. II. text book, M. Clinton McGee (University Press 1954), p. 41, states: 'A ordinary final guilt. whereby answer, facts warrant. believing probably guilty, informed nature charge allow state bring serves perpetuate keep control state. safeguards groundless vindictive avoids expense inconvenience public III. motions behalf 'any whatsoever obtained relating line-up conceded arrests, oral confessions motions, said: consistent ruling, don't know that, basis work defendant, assuming stand, nature, merits, inadmissible. wouldn't anticipate offering like changed ways doing things. material standpoint down preliminary, statement, guilty.' You lot say, admissible weren't thing.' RSFSR Codes provides: 'Confinement guard continue months. Only reason special complexity prolonged confinement procurator autonomous republic, territory, region, national area, military region fleet, Procurator Military Procurator. Further prolongation exceptional instances USSR General months.' Soviet Law Procedure: 288 (H. Berman & J. Spindler, transl. 1966). provides part: 'Defense participate moment completion become acquainted them.' Codes, n. 269. monopoly device Greek Government report Commission Human Council Europe high level efficiency torture: 'Falanga bastinado method torture centuries. beating feet wooden metal stick which, skillfully done, breaks bones, skin lesions, permanent recognisable marks, causes intense pain swelling falanga described situations: bench chair car-seat; shoes on. Sometimes water thrown sometimes run around beatings. Victims gagged. 'While severe beatings parts body commonest forms ill-treatment Sub-Commission, described: example, electric shock, squeezing head vice, pulling hair kicking male genital organs, dripping head, noises prevent sleep. form Sub-Commission establish degree appears great frequency allegations raised named detainees. principal treatment—frequently several combined case—are follows categories: Cases examined Falanga...................... 23. Electro-shock................ 4. Mock execution threats shoot kill 12......................... Other ill-treatment. 26. 17" European Rights, Report Case, Vol. 2, pt. 1,pp. 415-416 From judged (see, e.g., 349, 799, 799 (1963)), carring involved procedure, offensive concept 'fundamental fairness' embodied Clause. different collected fortiori, thought 'line-up' is, reversal. Amendment, difficult language, defence' supplied), intended reach pre-indictment events. Sanders 23, 1068, 1081, 148 pertinent is: here. 133—140 (1958).

Category: 0