Legal Document

388 U.S. 293 87 Supreme Court Reporter 1967 18 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 1199 Theodore STOVALL, Petitioner,v.Wilfred DENNO, Warden. Number 254. Argued Feb. 16, 1967. Decided June 12, Leon baron Polsky, New York City, for petitioner. William Cahn, Mineola, N.Y., respondent. or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Richard Uviller, State District Attorney's Ass'n, as amicus curiae. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This federal habeas corpus proceeding attacks collaterally a state criminal conviction same alleged constitutional errors in admission allegedly tainted identification evidence that were before us on direct review convictions involved versus Wade, 218, 1926, 1149, and Gilbert California, 263, 1951, 1178. case therefore provides vehicle deciding extent to which rules announced Wade Gilbert—requiring exclusion is by exhibiting accused identifying witnesses trial absence his counsel—are be applied retroactively. See Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 85 1731, 14 601; Tehan ex rel. Shott, 382 406, 86 459, 15 453; Johnson Jersey, 384 719, 1772, 16 882.1 A further question whether any event, facts particular confrontation this case, petitioner was denied due process law violation Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. Davis North Carolina, 737, 1761, 895. 2 Dr. Paul Behrendt stabbed death kitchen home Garden Long Island, about midnight August 23, 1961. Behrendt's wife, also physician, had followed her husband jumped at assailant. He knocked floor 11 times. The police found shirt keys pocket they traced They arrested him afternoon 24. An arraignment promptly held but postponed until could retain counsel. 3 Mrs. hospitalized major surgery save life. police, without affording time counsel, arranged with surgeon permit them bring hospital room noon 25, day after surgery. Petitioner handcuffed one five officers who, two members staff Attorney, brought room. only Negro identified from bed being asked an officer he 'was man' repeated direction 'few words voice identification.' None recall used. testified room, she made in-court courtroom. 4 convicted sentenced death. Appeals affirmed opinion. People Stovall, 13 N.Y.2d 1094, 246 N.Y.S.2d 410, 196 Eastern Reporter, 2nd 65. pro se sought Southern York. claimed among other rights trial, testimony violated under Fifth, Sixth, Fur teenth Amendments because been compelled submit help counsel circumstances unfairly focused witness' attention man believed guilty person. dismissed petition hearing argument unrelated claim invalid search seizure. On appeal Second Circuit panel court initially reversed dismissal reaching issue admissibility holding it inadmissible ground petitioner's right assistance thereafter heard en banc, vacated decision, 355 Federal 731. We granted certiorari, 1000, 1983, 1014, set Gilbert. hold affect those cases all future involve confrontations purposes conducted date. rulings are inapplicable present case. think not deprived judgment is, therefore, affirmed. I. 5 Our recent discussions retroactivity procedure make unnecessary detailed treatment here. supra; supra. 'These establish principle litigation concerning claims, 'the may interest justice rule prospective * where exigencies situation require such application' *.' Johnson, supra, U.S., 726—727, S.Ct., 1777. criteria guiding resolution implicates (a) purpose served new standards, (b) reliance enforcement authorities old (c) effect administration retroactive application standards. '(T)he nonretroactivity automatically determined provision Constitution dictate based. Each has its own distinct functions, background precedent, impact justice, way these factors combine must inevitably vary involved.' 728, 1778. 6 fashion exclusionary deter notice rests mistaken gross miscarriage justice. aimed minimizing possibility preventing unfairness pretrial experience proved can occur assuring meaningful examination trial. Does follow should retroactively? do so. 7 It true retroactively stages prosecution denial almost invariably deny fair example, itself, Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 9 799, some forms arraignment, Hamilton Alabama, 368 52, 82 157, 114, appeal, Douglas 353, 814, 811. 'The basic determination truth, self-evident lawyer's through technical intricacies full opportunity poor impede infect clear danger convicting innocent.' 416, 465. have fashioned correct serious flaws fact-finding example Jackson Denno, 378 368, 84 1774, 12 908. Although avoiding enhancing reliability area evidence, does enhance necessarily matter degree.' 729, condemned practice infects integrity truth-determining 'question probabilities.' Ibid. Such probabilities turn weighed against prior justified upon standards 8 outlined dangers inherent identification. point great, both manner frequently conducted, likelihood will often precluded reconstructing what occurred thereby obtaining presence significantly promote fairness have, concluded 'critical stage,' required confrontations. recognized, however, that, unlike absent confidently assumed scrupulous prejudice Therefore, while we feel forth need assure our system undoubtedly no present. Of course, assume there injustices past averted having identification, just when But certainty frequency say injustice differs greatly enough involving justify treating situations different kind application, especially light strong countervailing interests below, remains open persons allege prove, Stovall attempts resulted infringed law. Palmer Peyton, 359 199 (C.A.4th Cir. 1966). unusual force considerations strengthens conclusion favor application. officials Government 50 heretofore proceeded premise did Today's foreshadowed cases; requirement decided Fifth Circuit, 358 557. overwhelming majority American courts always treated credibility jury. Wall, Eye-Witness Identification Criminal Cases 38. Law fairly relied virtually unanimous weight authority, now longer valid, conducting very 'would seriously disrupt laws.' 731, 1780. In thought persuasive no-comment Griffin 380 609, 1229, 106, would six allowed comment accused's failure take stand. said, 'To void every person who testify their so devastating elaboration.' 419, 467. That insignificant compared expected rules. At least, processing current calendars disrupted hearings determine taint, if any, event harmless error. Doubtless, too, inquiry handicapped unavailability dim memories. conclude, retroactive. 10 conclude purposes, distinction between final, instant various review. regard burden entitled overriding significance unsupportable.2 recognize are, victims benefit established cases. given unavoidable consequence necessity adjudications stand mere dictum. Sound policies decision-making, rooted command Article III resolve issues solely concrete controversies,3 possible incentive advance contentions requiring change law,4 militate denying today's decisions. Inequity arguably results according parties litigants similarly situated appellate raised issue.5 fact chance beneficiaries cost adherence sound principles decision-making. II. petitioner, although relief unnecessarily suggestive conducive irrear able recognized attack independent claim. showing suspects singly part lineup, widely condemned.6 However, conduct depends totality surrounding it, record reveals immediate imperative. Appeals, stated, 735, 'Here world possibly exonerate Stovall. Her words, 'He freedom far distant courthouse jail. No knew how long might live. Faced responsibility attacker, action knowledge visit jail, feasible took Under circumstances, usual station line-up, argues had, out question.' ordered. Affirmed. DOUGLAS view deprivation setting 814. And see 640, 1745 (dissenting opinion); 736, 1782 opinion). FORTAS reverse remand State's reference improper Amendment prejudicial. reach 17 WHITE, whom HARLAN STEWART join. For reasons stated my separate 250, 1944. & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions perceive error subjected. concur result portion Court's limits Sixth rule. 19 BLACK, dissenting. 20 1178, holds lineup excluded obtained concurred holdings out-of-court guaranteed Amendments. first defendants, already prison unconstitutional shall accorded here, remain prison, besides Gilbert, 'chance beneficiaries,' invoke except defendants exhibited lineups future. dissent holding. keeps people serving sentences victed use evidence. somehow work 'burden justice' serve 'to authorities.' seems me others like deprives perpetrates rank discrimination them. Once determines says, believe power, weighing 'countervailing interest,' legislate timetable Constitution's provisions become effective. 1743, here jail based advantage newly 21 goes on, even though Amendment's cannot nevertheless consideration claim, 'independent claim,' robbery 'unfair' 'due law' finds merit, general 'unfairness' 'open prove'. term descendant Magna Charta's promise 'law land' lawmaking agency, legislative. ever word history shows Framers intended Due Process Clause designed mean more than charged crimes governed laws, statutory, existence commission crime concept purports decide question, looks circumstances' comport notions decency, fairness, fundamental and, so, declares Constitution, not, forbidden Constitution. See, e.g., Rochin 342 165, 72 205, 96 L.Ed. 183. formula substitutes supreme land. notion proceeds written grant limited powers government, neutralized limitations using authorize override limiting language substituting government. again Where accepted, Constitution-interpreter, day-to-day Constitution-maker. 22 construed giving latitudinarian Court, still too look each large 'suggestive irreparable identification' constitutional. freeze permanent t transfers power say, instead performance undoubted say. put into mould plainly within creating enforcing laws. deference gives bar introduction violates specific prohibition, arbitrary, wholly capricious action. 23 affirm was, Chapman 386 18, 824, 705, If makes obligatory States. respondent raise retroactivity, Attorney General York, curiae, extensively briefed reply brief, addressed himself question. Compare Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 646, n. 3, 81 1684, 1686, 1081. Schaefer, Control 'Sunbursts': Techniques Prospective Overruling, Record N.Y.C.B.A. 394, 408—411 (1967). Note, Overruling Retroactive Application Courts, 71 Yale L.J. 907, 930—933 (1962). Mishkin, Foreward, 1964 Term, 79 Harv.L.Rev. 56, 60—61 (1965). 4, 61, 23; Bender, Effect Constitutional Decision: 110 U.Pa.L.Rev. 650, 675—678 (1962); Schwartz, Retroactivity, Reliability, Process: Reply Professor 33 U.Chi.L.Rev. 764 (1966). 26 40; Paul, Accused Persons, Austl.L.J. 42, 44 (1938); Williams Hammelmann, Parades, Part I, (1963) Crim.L.Rev. 479, 480—481; Frankfurter, Case Sacco Vanzetti 31—32.

Classification Label: 0