United States v. Wade

1967-06-12

Headline: Court limits police lineups by requiring defense counsel at post-indictment identifications, reversing the conviction but allowing courtroom IDs if the Government proves an independent source.

Holding: The Court held that post-indictment lineups are a "critical stage" requiring defense counsel’s presence, that the lineup did not violate the Fifth Amendment, and that courtroom IDs may be admitted if shown independently.

Real World Impact:

Requires counsel to be notified and present at post-indictment lineups.
Allows courtroom identifications if Government proves independent source by clear, convincing evidence.
Vacates conviction and remands for a hearing on whether IDs were tainted.

Topics: eyewitness identification, right to counsel, police lineups, criminal trials

Summary

Background

A federally insured bank in Eustace, Texas, was robbed and a man with small strips of tape on his face forced employees to hand over cash. The accused was arrested, and a lawyer was appointed before an FBI agent arranged a courtroom lineup without notifying or bringing the lawyer. Both bank employees later pointed to the accused at trial and testified they had identified him at the earlier lineup. The accused was convicted, the Court of Appeals reversed on Sixth Amendment grounds, and the Supreme Court reviewed the case.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether a post-indictment lineup conducted without the accused’s counsel requires excluding later in-court identifications. It held that forcing a person to stand for observation or to speak words for identification does not, by itself, violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. But the Court concluded the lineup was a "critical stage" of the prosecution under the Sixth Amendment. Because pretrial identification procedures are laden with risks of suggestion and are hard to reconstruct at trial, counsel must be notified and allowed to attend unless the accused intelligently waives that right.

Real world impact

The Court vacated the conviction and sent the case back for a hearing to determine whether the courtroom identifications had an independent source. It made clear that courtroom identification need not be automatically excluded; the Government may admit such testimony only if it proves by clear and convincing evidence the in-court ID came from sources other than the unlawful lineup. This decision affects police and prosecutors’ handling of lineups and defendants’ right to counsel.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices agreed in part but disagreed on scope. Some argued the compelled speaking at a lineup violates the Fifth Amendment. Others warned the rule is too broad and could impede investigations. These differing views explain limits and contest the majority’s remedies.