Court Opinion

ID: 9454720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:56:12.12918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:15.597574
License: Public Domain

FAHY, Senior Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
The United States has consented to reversal and a new trial because of noncompliance by the District Court with the requirements of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149; Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178, and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199. Notwithstanding this the court remands the case for a hearing on the identification issue, the question of a new trial to be determined by the District Court, depending upon the result of the hearing.
The case was submitted to us on the briefs without oral argument. After submission we suggested to the parties the possible desirability of oral argument, but we were advised by each that argument was not desired. This indicates the United States remains of the view a new trial should be granted; and I think it likely appellant’s counsel assumes the court would accept this confession of error by the United States, though we are not bound to do so.
The case arose and was tried after the Wade, Gilbert and Stovall cases; yet appellant was not afforded counsel or the right to counsel at the pretrial “line-up” identification. The United States in its brief properly points out that the District Courts “were without pronouncements from this Court [of Appeals] on the implementation of the procedures outlined in” the Supreme Court opinions, and concedes error, stating:
[W]e feel the interest of justice will best be served by permitting another hearing where both counsel and the court will have the benefit of the intervening clarification which has recently come to this area. Cf. Frank*411lin v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 331, 335, 330 F.2d 205 (1964).
******
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully submitted that the judgment of the District Court be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
The position of the United States Attorney, conscientiously taken in a case of possibly mistaken identification, I think should be accepted by the court.
As to the merits in other respects, since submission of the case our court has upheld the need for a special instruction on identification, when requested, in such a case. Macklin v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 139, 409 F.2d 174, decided February 18, 1969. Appellant requested such an instruction. Though it. need not have been given in the language requested, the Macklin ease, aside from the Wade issue upon the basis of which the United States consents to reversal, seems also to require reversal. We said in Macklin:
We think that now, after the Supreme Court has focused on identification problems in its 1967 Wade-Gilbert-Stovall trilogy, it is even more imperative that trial courts include, as a matter of routine, an identification instruction. In cases where identification is a major issue the judge should not rely on defense counsel to request so important a charge. In this regard, we note that the manual Criminal Jury Instructions For The District Of Columbia (1966) published by the Bar Association of the District of Columbia contains a charge on mistaken identity. A charge such as this might well be given, supplemented by observations on identification evidence as discussed in Wade, Gilbert and Stovall.
133 U.S.App.D.C. 139, at 143, 409 F.2d 174, at 178.
A new trial which would follow our acceptance of the position of the United States would obviate the problem of an identification instruction under Macklin, for at the retrial such an instruction could be given. This would raise no problem about the retroactivity of Mack-lin.1
I accordingly dissent from the refusal of the court to grant a new trial as agreed by the United States in the interest of justice.

. The Government indicated that the instruction issue “need not he reached since appellant is entitled to a new trial.