IEJS > Law > Procedure > Identification Procedures

Leading Cases on Identification Procedures

• UNITED STATES v. WADE, 388 U.S. 218 (1967)
  "Neither the lineup itself nor anything required therein violated respondent's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination since merely exhibiting his person for observation by witnesses and using his voice as an identifying physical characteristic involved no compulsion of the accused to give evidence of a testimonial nature against himself which is prohibited by that Amendment. The Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused the right to counsel not only at his trial but at any critical confrontation by the prosecution at pretrial proceedings where the results might well determine his fate and where the absence of counsel might derogate from his right to a fair trial."
   
• SIMMONS v. UNITED STATES, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
  "In the light of the totality of the circumstances surrounding this case, the identification procedure through use of the photographs was not such as to deny Simmons due process of law or to call for reversal under the Court's supervisory authority."
   
• STOVALL v. DENNO, 388 U.S. 293 (1967)
  "Though the practice of showing suspects singly for purposes of identification has been widely condemned, a violation of due process of law in the conduct of a confrontation depends on the totality of the surrounding circumstances. There was no due process denial in the confrontation here since Mrs. Behrendt was the only person who could exonerate the suspect; she could not go to the police station for the usual lineup; and there was no way of knowing how long she would live."
   
• KIRBY v. ILLINOIS, 406 U.S. 682 (1972)
  "The Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments forbids a lineup that is unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 ; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 .When a person has not been formally charged with a criminal offense, Stovall strikes the appropriate constitutional balance between the right of a suspect to be protected from prejudicial procedures and the interest of society in the prompt and purposeful investigation of an unsolved crime."
   
• UNITED STATES v. ASH, 413 U.S. 300 (1973)
  "The Sixth Amendment does not grant an accused the right to have counsel present when the Government conducts a post-indictment photographic display, containing a picture of the accused, for the purpose of allowing a witness to attempt an identification of the offender."
   
• FOSTER v. CALIFORNIA, 394 U.S. 440 (1969)
  "The suggestive elements in this identification procedure made it all but inevitable that David would identify petitioner whether or not he was in fact "the man." In effect, the police repeatedly said to the witness, "This is the man." This procedure so undermined the reliability of the eyewitness identification as to violate due process."
   

This page available at: