US v. Wade
US v. Wade 1967
Bank robbery in TX. D gets indicted 4 months later.
He is arrested the next month and gets a ct appointed attorney. 15 days later there was a post-indictment line-up. D counsel got no notice that this was going to happen. Happened in county ct house and there were 5 other dudes with strips of tape on their face. Asked to say, “Put the money in the bag.” No pictures of line-up taken. Both bank employees ID’d Wade as the robber.
-At trial, P only brought up a in court id’s were made. The D brought up the other id in the courthouse.
-On appeal, Wade argues this was violation of 6th amendment right to counsel (cite MessiahInterrogation after indictment, you must have lawyer there unless you waive)
-Holding: It’s a 6th amendment violation if an attorney is not permitted to sit at a post-indictment line-up of their client.
-Remedy: Exclusion of the line-up evidence (per se rule)
-Can W still make an in ct id in a case like this? It is admissible if under independent source doctrine they could identify the person independent from the line-up (Need to show it by clear and convincing evidence)
-Why POE for inevitable discovery and CAC for independent source? No real reason
-Prosecutors generally get the in court id anyways.