Kirby v. Illinois

Background

On February 22, 1968, police stopped a man later named Kirby and a companion and arrested them after finding the robbery victim’s traveler's checks and Social Security card. The officers brought the victim, Willie Shard, to the police station, and Shard immediately identified Kirby and the companion as the robbers in a station-room showup. No lawyer was present and no formal charges had yet been filed; the defendants were indicted more than six weeks later. A state court admitted Shard’s testimony about the station identification and affirmed the conviction, prompting this appeal focused on whether an automatic exclusion applies to pre-charge showups.

Reasoning

The Court reviewed the earlier rulings that require counsel at post-indictment lineups and an automatic exclusion for in-court identifications that stem from unlawful lineups. The plurality concluded those protections attach only after adversary judicial proceedings begin, so it would not extend the Wade‑Gilbert per se exclusion to identifications made before formal charging. The Court emphasized that due-process limits still forbid unnecessarily suggestive confrontations and that courts must scrutinize pretrial identifications for unfairness.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to extend a per se exclusion to pre-indictment showups, identification testimony from station‑house showups before formal charges may be admitted unless it is shown to be so suggestive as to violate due process. The decision affirms the conviction in this case and leaves open constitutional challenges based on suggestive procedures rather than an automatic rule.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices joined the plurality, and several concurrences agreed with the result. A dissent argued that Wade and Gilbert’s rationale applies equally to post‑arrest showups and would have required exclusion of such identification testimony; the Court’s split shows significant disagreement over the rule’s scope.