Legal Precedent on Post-Indictment Lineups

This legal case established that a lineup conducted after an indictment represents a crucial phase of legal proceedings, necessitating the presence of legal counsel as mandated by the Sixth Amendment. Should an in-court identification occur subsequent to a lineup conducted without counsel, its admissibility is contingent upon demonstrating an independent origin for that identification.

Summary

This legal case determined that a suspect's appearance in a police lineup after being formally accused of a crime is an important step where legal representation is necessary. This requirement falls under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right to an attorney.

If a lineup occurs without an attorney present, and a witness later identifies the suspect in court, that in-court identification can only be used as evidence if it can be shown that the identification came from a source separate from the problematic lineup. In other words, the witness must have a reason for their identification that does not rely on the earlier, unrepresented lineup.

Summary

A court case decided that a person has a right to have a lawyer present during a police lineup after being formally accused of a crime. This right comes from the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. If a lawyer was not present during such a lineup, any later identification made in court can only be used if there is a separate, valid reason for that identification.

Summary

This court case decided that a person has a right to a lawyer during a police lineup after they have been charged with a crime. This right comes from the Sixth Amendment. If a person does not have a lawyer at such a lineup, a witness can only identify that person in court if their memory of the person comes from a different source than the lineup.