United States v. Wade
| United States v. Wade | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued February 16, 1967 Decided June 12, 1967 |
|
| Full case name | United States v. Billy Joe Wade |
| Citations | 388 U.S. 218 (more)
87 S.Ct. 1926; 18 L.Ed.2d 1149
|
| Prior history | Defendant convicted, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; reversed, 358 F.2d 557 (5th Cir. 1966); cert granted, 87 S.Ct. 81 (1966) |
| Holding | |
| A post-indictment lineup in the absence of counsel was a violation of the Sixth Amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Brennan, joined by Warren (except Part I), Douglas (except for Part I), Clark, Fortas |
| Concurrence | Clark |
| Concur/dissent | Black |
| Concur/dissent | White, joined by Harlan, Stewart |
| Concur/dissent | Fortas, joined by Warren, Douglas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. VI | |
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that a criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a lineup held after indictment.
On September 21, 1964, a bank in Eustace, Texas was robbed while two employees were inside. On March 23, 1965, Billy Joe Wade and two others were indicted for robbing the bank. Wade was arrested on April 2, 1965, and counsel was appointed to represent him on April 26. Two weeks later an FBI agent arranged a lineup at the county courthouse that consisted of Wade and five or six other prisoners. Wade did not have counsel present, and the two bank employees identified Wade as the robber.
At trial the bank employees identified Wade as the robber. The employees were cross-examined about the nature of the previous lineup. The defense moved for acquittal, arguing that the lineup was a violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The trial court denied the motion, and Wade was convicted. The Fifth Circuit reversed Wade's conviction, holding that the lineup in the absence of counsel was a violation of the Sixth Amendment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
In Part I, not a part of the opinion because of the limited concurrence of Chief Justice Warren and Justice Douglas, Justice Brennan held that the lineup was not a violation of Wade's Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.
The majority, however, observed that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel could be violated even in the absence of a Fifth Amendment violation. To safeguard a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial, counsel must be present at the critical stages of the prosecution. The Court disputed the Government's characterization of the lineup as a preliminary stage, like the analysis of fingerprints, where counsel is not required.
The Court noted that the lack of counsel at the lineup posed a risk of substantial prejudice to the defendant. Lineups could be very suggestive, and the uncounseled defendant would face serious difficulty in addressing any problems through cross-examination at trial because he would be unable to observe police action during the lineup. The Court also dismissed the contention that the presence of defense counsel would disrupt the activities of prosecutors. Instead, the presence of defense counsel would remove any taint of unfairness associated with the evidence. The Court noted that future regulation of pretrial stages with the adoption of police codes and other safeguards of fairness might render a stage not critical and vitiate the constitutional need for counsel.
...
Wikipedia