|
|
Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967)
Stovall v. Denno No. 254 Argued February 16, 1967 Decided June 12, 1967 388 U.S. 293
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering one Dr. Behrendt. He had been arrested the day after the murder, and, without being afforded time to retain counsel, was taken by police officers, to one of whom he was handcuffed, to be viewed at the hospital by Mrs. Behrendt, who had been seriously wounded by her husband’s assailant. After observing him and hearing him speak as directed by an officer, Mrs. Behrendt identified petitioner as the murderer. Mrs. Behrendt and the officers testified at petitioner’s trial as to the hospital identification, and she also made an in-court identification of the petitioner. Following affirmance of his conviction by the highest state court, petitioner sought habeas corpus in the District Court, claiming that Mrs. Behrendt’s identification testimony violated his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The District Court after hearing argument on an unrelated claim, dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals, en banc, vacated a panel decision reversing the dismissal of the petition on constitutional grounds, and affirmed the District Court.
Held:
1. The constitutional rule established in today’s decisions in United States v. Wade and Gilbert v. California, ante pp. 218, 263, has application only to cases involving confrontations for identification purposes conducted in the absence of counsel after this date. Cf. Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618; Tehan v. Shott, 382 U.S. 406; Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719. Pp. 296-301.
2. 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. Pp. 301-302.
355 F.2d 731, affirmed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) in 388 U.S. 293 388 U.S. 294. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=9VNZ4AEZPVPLUGG.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967), in 388 U.S. 293, page 388 U.S. 294. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=9VNZ4AEZPVPLUGG.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967). cited in 1967, 388 U.S. 293, pp.388 U.S. 294. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=9VNZ4AEZPVPLUGG.
|