Biggers v. Tennessee

Background

A 16-year-old defendant was charged with a rape that occurred on January 22, 1965. The victim, Mrs. Beamer, was grabbed in her home, threatened with a butcher knife, taken two blocks away, and raped while her 13-year-old daughter witnessed parts of the event. Months later the police showed the victim many photographs. On August 17, 1965, after the defendant was arrested for a different rape, officers brought Mrs. Beamer to the station and placed the defendant at the doorway. He was asked to repeat the rapist’s words, and Mrs. Beamer identified him then. At trial she did not make an in-court identification, and the station-house identification was the only evidence linking him to the crime.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court was evenly divided and issued a per curiam statement affirming the lower court’s judgment; one Justice did not participate. There was no majority opinion explaining the Court’s reasons. In a separate dissent, Justice Douglas described the station-house confrontation as a one-person “showup” that was highly suggestive. He emphasized the seven-month gap, poor lighting at the scene, reliance on the suspect’s voice, lack of notice to the defendant’s family or counsel, and the absence of other identifying evidence. Douglas concluded that using that confrontational identification at trial denied due process and would require a new trial.

Real world impact

Because the Justices split, the Tennessee conviction and 20-year sentence remain in place. The case highlights how one-on-one police showups can produce unreliable identifications and raises concerns about police practices when witnesses are shown a single suspect. The Court’s tie means there is no new Supreme Court rule changing identification law in this decision.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas’s dissent is important here: he argued the identification procedure was so suggestive that it violated due process and that, since it was the only identification evidence, the defendant deserved a new trial.