United States v. Ash
Headline: Ruling limits the right to a lawyer (Sixth Amendment) by refusing to require lawyers at government photo displays, making it easier for prosecutors to use witness photo identifications in trials.
Holding: The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment does not require a lawyer to be present when the government shows witnesses post-indictment photographs to try to identify the suspect, and it reversed the appeals court's decision.
- Allows prosecutors to conduct post-indictment photo displays without a defendant’s lawyer present.
- Defendants must rely on trial cross-examination and postconviction remedies to challenge photo IDs.
- Leaves lower courts to decide fairness of photo identifications on remand.
Summary
Background
A masked duo robbed a Washington, D.C. bank in August 1965. A government informant later named Charles Ash; FBI agents showed black-and-white mug shots in February 1966 and then, after an April 1966 indictment, five color photographs to witnesses just before the May 1968 trial. Three witnesses selected Ash’s picture; the defense objected to the post-indictment photographic displays and the photographs were later admitted at trial. The jury convicted Ash on all counts.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether the Sixth Amendment requires a lawyer to be present whenever the government shows post-indictment photographs to witnesses for identification. Relying on history and this Court’s lineup decisions (Wade, Gilbert, Stovall), the majority concluded that photographic displays are not the same as live lineups because the accused is not present and photographic procedures can usually be reconstructed and challenged at trial. The Court emphasized the ability of defense counsel to obtain or examine photographs, the prosecutor’s ethical duties, and existing due-process remedies, and therefore held no automatic right to counsel at photo displays.
Real world impact
The decision reverses the D.C. Circuit’s en banc ruling and returns the question whether a particular photo identification was unfair to lower courts to resolve. Criminal defendants will not automatically get lawyers at government photo displays; challenges must instead be raised later at trial or on remand, including possible fairness (due process) review.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stewart agreed the Court should reverse, stressing easier reconstruction of photographic displays. Justice Brennan (joined by Douglas and Marshall) dissented, arguing photo IDs pose similar risks to lineups and should require counsel.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?