|
|
Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972)
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.
Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972)
Kirby v. Illinois No. 70-5061 Argued November 11, 1971 Reargued March 20-21, 1972 Decided June 7, 1972 406 U.S. 682
CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS,
FIRST DISTRICT
Syllabus
Petitioner and a companion were stopped for interrogation. When each produced, in the course of demonstrating identification, items bearing the name "Shard," they were arrested and taken to the police station. There, the arresting officers learned of a robbery of one "Shard" two days before. The officers sent for Shard, who immediately identified petitioner and his companion as the robbers. At the time of the confrontation, petitioner and his companion were not advised of the right to counsel, nor did either ask for or receive legal assistance. Six weeks later, petitioner and his companion were indicted for the Shard robbery. At the trial, after a pretrial motion to suppress his testimony had been overruled, Shard testified as to his previous identification of petitioner and his companion, and again identified them as the robbers. The defendants were found guilty, and petitioner’s conviction was upheld on appeal, the appellate court holding that the per se exclusionary rule of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, did not apply to pre-indictment confrontations.
Held: The judgment is affirmed. Pp. 687-691.
121 Ill.App.2d 323, 257 N.E.2d 589, affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, concluded that a showup after arrest, but before the initiation of any adversary criminal proceeding (whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment), unlike the post-indictment confrontations involved in Gilbert and Wade, is not a criminal prosecution at which the accused, as a matter of absolute right, is entitled to counsel. Pp. 687-691.
MR. JUSTICE POWELL concurred in the result. P. 691.
STEWART, J., announced the Court’s judgment and delivered an opinion in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACKMUN and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., filed a concurring statement, post, p. 691. POWELL, J., filed a statement concurring in the result, post, p. 691. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which DOUGLAS and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 691. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting statement, post, p. 705.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972) in 406 U.S. 682 406 U.S. 683. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=TJRYMADQ9GCQPS6.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972), in 406 U.S. 682, page 406 U.S. 683. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=TJRYMADQ9GCQPS6.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972). cited in 1972, 406 U.S. 682, pp.406 U.S. 683. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=TJRYMADQ9GCQPS6.
|