Right to counsel- other lineups and ID's procedures

Question 1

United States v. Wade

Answer 1

Facts
The federally insured bank in Eustace, Texas, was robbed on September 21, 1964, by a man who entered the bank with tape on his face, armed with a pistol, and robbed the bank with the help of an accomplice waiting in a stolen car. Respondent, Wade, along with two others, was indicted for conspiring to rob the bank and for the robbery itself. After Wade’s arrest and the appointment of his counsel, an FBI agent arranged a lineup without notice to Wade’s counsel, where two bank employees identified Wade as the robber. During the trial, these employees identified Wade in the courtroom, and the prior lineup identification was also discussed. Wade’s counsel moved to strike the courtroom identifications, arguing the lineup without counsel violated Wade’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The trial court denied the motion, and Wade was convicted. The Court of Appeals reversed, ordering a new trial and excluding the in-court identification evidence, citing a violation of Wade’s Sixth Amendment rights.

Issue
The central issue is whether courtroom identifications of an accused should be excluded because the accused was exhibited to witnesses before trial at a post-indictment lineup conducted without notice to and in the absence of the accused’s appointed counsel.

Holding
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, vacating the conviction, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, highlighting that the absence of counsel at the lineup violated Wade’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel

Question 2

Kirby v. Illinois Due Process

Answer 2

Facts
Willie Shard reported to Chicago police that he had been robbed by two men, one of whom was later identified as the petitioner, Kirby. Kirby and his companion were stopped by police, found with items belonging to Shard, and arrested. At the police station, without a lawyer present and before any formal charges had been filed against him, Kirby was identified by Shard as one of the robbers. This identification was later used at Kirby’s trial, leading to his conviction.

Issue
Does the exclusionary rule established in United States v. Wade and Gilbert v. California, requiring the exclusion of identification evidence obtained at a lineup without the presence of counsel, apply to identifications made before the defendant has been formally charged with a crime?

Holding
The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply to pre-charge confrontations, and therefore, the identification of Kirby by Shard at the police station without the presence of counsel did not violate Kirby’s constitutional rig

Question 3

Manson v. Brathwaite

Answer 3

Facts
In 1970, Jimmy D. Glover, an undercover Connecticut State Police trooper, and informant Henry Alton Brown attempted to purchase narcotics from a known dealer, “Dickie Boy” Cicero, in Hartford, Connecticut. The transaction occurred with a man who was not Cicero, in an apartment building’s third-floor hallway. Glover was able to observe the seller’s face at close range in natural light. Based on Glover’s detailed description of the seller, Officer D’Onofrio suspected the respondent, Brathwaite, obtained his photograph, and left it at Glover’s office. Glover later identified Brathwaite from this photograph as the seller. No lineup or photographic array was used in the identification process. Brathwaite was arrested and charged with possession and sale of heroin. At trial, both the photograph and Glover’s in-court identification of Brathwaite were admitted without objection. Brathwaite was convicted, and his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Connecticut. Brathwaite then filed a habeas corpus petition, alleging due process violations due to the suggestive identification process. The United States District Court dismissed the petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed, indicating the identification should have been excluded as it was obtained through unnecessarily suggestive means.

Issue
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require the exclusion of pretrial identification evidence obtained through a police procedure that is both suggestive and unnecessary, without consideration of the identification’s reliability?

Holding
No. The Supreme Court held that the admissibility of identification evidence obtained through a suggestive and unnecessary police procedure does not violate due process so long as the identification is reliable under the totality of the circumstances.