Lineups serve as a valuable tool in criminal investigations. They are procedures where a witness to a crime is asked to identify a suspect from a group, or a ‘lineup,’ of individuals. The individuals in the lineup typically include the suspect and other people who resemble the suspect but are known to be innocent, called ‘fillers.’
Landmark Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court has evaluated the constitutionality of these procedures in several important cases. Two of them are the landmark cases United States v. Wade (1967) and Neil v. Biggers (1972).
In United States v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to counsel applies to post-indictment lineups. The defendant’s attorney should be present at the lineup to ensure the fairness of the procedure and to assist the defendant in asserting any irregularities or biases (United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218). This protection was deemed necessary to preserve the integrity of the identification process.
However, the Court also recognized that there might be circumstances where an attorney’s presence at a lineup is not feasible. In such cases, the Court established a test for the admissibility of lineup identification evidence in the absence of counsel. The test asks whether the lineup was “unnecessarily suggestive” and whether there was a “very substantial likelihood of misidentification.”
In Neil v. Biggers, the Court expanded upon the principles set out in Wade. It held that the reliability of an identification procedure is the most important factor in determining its admissibility. Even if the lineup was suggestive, the identification could still be admitted if it was reliable under the circumstances (Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188). The Court listed several factors to assess reliability, including the witness’s opportunity to view the criminal, the witness’s degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’s prior description, and the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation.
Conclusion
These rulings underscore the balance that must be struck in lineups. They must be conducted in a manner that respects the constitutional rights of the suspect while also producing reliable identification evidence.
Remember, in any situation, the goal is to balance the needs of justice: ensuring the guilty are brought to account and the innocent are protected from wrongful prosecution.
Summary
This section discussed lineups, a critical component of criminal identification procedures. We examined key Supreme Court decisions, United States v. Wade and Neil v. Biggers, which set the constitutional standards for lineups. Lineups require careful administration to uphold suspects’ rights while ensuring reliable identification evidence. It is this balance that constitutes the heart of fair and just procedural law in the criminal justice system.
References
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972)
Modification History File Created: 08/08/2018 Last Modified: 07/24/2023
This work is licensed under an Open Educational Resource-Quality Master Source (OER-QMS) License.
You are welcome to print a copy of pages from this Open Educational Resource (OER) book for your personal use. Please note that mass distribution, commercial use, or the creation of altered versions of the content for distribution are strictly prohibited. This permission is intended to support your individual learning needs while maintaining the integrity of the material.
