United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967)

OCTOBER TERM, 1966.
Syllabus. 388 U. S.
UNITED STATES v. WADE.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.
No. 334. Argued February 16, 1967.-Decided June 12, 1967.

Sevdral weeks after respondent's indictment for robbery of a fed-
erally insured bank and for conspiracy, respondent, without notice
to his appointed counsel, was placed in a lineup in which each
person wore strips of tape on his face, as the robber allegedly had
done, and on direction repeated words like those the robber
allegedly had used. Two bank employees identified respondent
as the robber. At the trial when asked if the robber was in the
courtroom, they identified respondent. The prior lineup identifi-
cations were elicited on cross-examination. Urging that the con-
duct of the lineup violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against
self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel,
respondent filed a motion for judgment of acquittal or, alterna-
tively, to strike the courtroom identifications. The trial court
denied the motions and respondent was convicted. The Court of
Appeals reversed, holding that though there was no Fifth Amend-
ment deprivation the absence of counsel at the lineup denied
respondent his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment and
required the grant of a new trial at which the in-court identifica-
tions of those who had made lineup identifications would be
excluded. Held:
1. Neither the lineup itself nor anything required therein violated
respondent's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination
since merely exhibiting his person for observation by witnesses
and using his voice as an identifying physical characteristic in-
volved no compulsion of the accused to give evidence of a testi-
monial nature against himself which is prohibited by that
Amendment. Pp. 221-223.
2. The Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused the right to
counsel not only at his trial but at any critical confrontation by
the prosecution at pretrial proceedings where the results might
well determine his fate and where the absence of counsel might
derogate from his right to a fair trial. Pp. 223-227.
3. The post-indictment lineup (unlike such preparatory steps
as analyzing fingerprints and blood samples) was a critical prose-
cutive stage at which respondent was entitled to the aid of counsel.
Pp. 227-239.
218 Opinion of the Court.
(a) There is a great possibility of unfairness to the accused

at that point., (1) because of the manner in which confrontations
for identification are frequently conducted, (2) because of dangers
inherent in eyewitness identification and suggestibility inherent in
the context of the confrontations, and (3) because of the likelihood
that the accused will often be precluded from reconstructing what
occurred and thereby obtaining a full hearing on the identification
issue at trial. Pp. 229-235.
(b) This case illustrates the potential for improper influence
on witnesses through the lineup procedure, since the bank em-
ployees were allowed to see respondent in the custody of FBI
agents before the lineup began. Pp. 233-234.
(c) The presence of counsel at the lineup will significantly
promote fairness at the confrontation and a full hearing at trial
on the issue of identification. Pp. 236-238.
4. In-court identification by a witness to whom the accused was
exhibited before trial in the absence of counsel must be excluded
unless it can be established that such evidence had an independent
origin or that error in its admission was harmless. Since it is not
clear that the Court of Appeals applied the prescribed rule of
exclusion, and since the nature of the in-court identifications here
was not an issue in the trial and cannot be determined on the
record, the case must be remanded to the District Court for reso-
lution of these issues. Pp. 239-243.
358 F. 2d 557, vacated and remanded.
Beatrice Rosenberg argued the cause for the United

States. With her on the brief were Acting Solicitor Gen-
eral Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Nathan
Lewin and Ronald L. Gainer.
Weldon Holcomb argued the cause and filed a brief
for respondent.
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the

Court.
The question here is whether courtroom identifica-
tions of an accused at trial are to be excluded from evi-
dence because the accused was exhibited to the witnesses
before trial at a post-indictment lineup conducted for
OCTOBER TERM, 1966.
Opinion of the Court. 388 U.S.

identification purposes without notice to and in the
absence of the accused's appointed counsel.
The federally insured bank in Eustace, Texas, was
robbed on September 21, 1964. A man with a small
strip of tape on each side of his face entered the bank,
pointed a pistol at the female cashier and the vice presi-
dent, the only persons in the bank at the time, and forced
them to fill a pillowcase with the bank's money. The
man then drove away with an accomplice who had been
waiting in a stolen car outside the bank. On March 23,
1965, an indictment was returned against respondent,
Wade, and two others for conspiring to rob the bank, and
against Wade and the accomplice for the robbery itself.
Wade was arrested on April 2, and counsel was appointed
to represent him on April 26. Fifteen days later an FBI
agent, without notice to Wade's lawyer, arranged to have
the two bank employees observe a lineup made up of
Wade and five or six other prisoners and conducted in
a courtroom of the local county courthouse. Each per-
son in the line wore strips of tape such as allegedly worn
by the robber and upon direction each said something
like "put the money in the bag," the words allegedly
uttered by the robber. Both bank employees identified
Wade in the lineup as the bank robber.
At trial, the two employees, when asked on direct
examination if the robber was in the courtroom, pointed
to Wade. The prior lineup identification was then
elicited from both employees on cross-examination. At
the close of testimony, Wade's counsel moved for a
judgment of acquittal or, alternatively, to strike the bank
officials' courtroom identifications on the ground that
conduct of the lineup, without notice to and in the
absence of his appointed counsel, violated his Fifth
Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and his
Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel.
The motion was denied, and Wade was convicted. The
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the con-

viction and ordered a new trial at which the in-court
identification evidence was to be excluded, holding that,
though the lineup did not violate Wade's Fifth Amend-
ment rights, "the lineup, held as it was, in the absence
of counsel, already chosen to represent appellant, was a
violation of his Sixth Amendment rights . ... " 358
F. 2d 557, 560. We granted certiorari, 385 U. S. 811,
and set the case for oral argument with No. 223, Gilbert
v. California,post, p. 263, and No. 254, Stovall v. Denno,
post, p. 293, which present similar questions. We reverse
the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to
that court with direction to enter a new judgment vacat-
ing the conviction and remanding the case to the District
Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.
Neither the lineup itself nor anything shown by this
record that Wade was required to do in the lineup vio-
lated his privilege against self-incrimination. We have
only recently reaffirmed that the privilege "protects an
accused only from being compelled to testify against
himself, or otherwise provide the State with evidence of a
testimonial or communicative nature .... " Schmerber v.
California, 384 U. S. 757, 761. We there held that com-
pelling a suspect to submit to a withdrawal of a sample
of his blood for analysis for alcohol content and the ad-
mission in evidence of the analysis report were not com-
pulsion to those ends. That holding was supported by
the opinion in Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245, in
which case a question arose as to whether a blouse
belonged to the defendant. A witness testified at trial
that the defendant put on the blouse and it had fit him.
The defendant argued that the admission of the testi-
mony was error because compelling him to put on the
blouse was a violation of his privilege. The Court
OCTOBER TERM, 1966.
Opinion of the Court,. 388 U. S.
rejected the claim as "an extravagant extension of the

Fifth Amendment," Mr. Justice Holmes saying for the
Court:
"[T] he prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal
court to be witness against himself is a prohibition
of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communications from him, not an exclusion of his
body as evidence when it may be material." 218
U. S., at 252-253.
The Court in Holt, however, put aside any constitu-
tional questions which might be involved in compelling
an accused, as here, to exhibit himself before victims of
or witnesses to an alleged crime; the Court stated,
"we need not consider how far a court would go in com-
pelling a man to exhibit himself." Id., at 253.1
We have no doubt that compelling the accused merely
to exhibit his person for observation by a prosecution
witness prior to trial involves no compulsion of the
accused to give evidence having testimonial significance.
It is compulsion of the accused to exhibit his physical
characteristics, not compulsion to disclose any knowl-
edge he might have. It is no different from compelling
Schmerber to provide a blood sample or Holt to wear
the blouse, and, as in those instances, is not within the
cover of the privilege. Similarly, compelling Wade to
speak within hearing distance of the witnesses, even to
utter words purportedly uttered by the robber, was not
compulsion to utter statements of a "testimonial" na-
ture; he was required to use his voice as an identifying
I Holt was decided before Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383,

fashioned the rule excluding illegally obtained evidence in a federal
prosecution. The Court therefore followed Adams v. New York,
192 U. S. 585, in holding that, in any event, "when he is exhibited,
whether voluntarily or by order, and even if the order goes too far,
the evidence, if material, is competent." 218 U. S., at 253.
physical characteristic, not to speak his guilt. We held

in Schmerber, supra, at 761, that the distinction to be
drawn under the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination is one between an accused's "communica-
tions" in whatever form, vocal or physical, and "com-
pulsion which makes a suspect or accused the source of
'real or physical evidence,'" Schmerber, supra, at 764.
We recognized that "both federal and state courts have
usually held that ... [the privilege] offers no protection
against compulsion to submit to fingerprinting, photog-
raphy, or measurements, to write or speak for identifica-
tion, to appear in court, to stand, to assume a stance,
to walk, or to make a particular gesture." Id., at 764.
None of these activities becomes testimonial within the
scope of the privilege because required of the accused
in a pretrial lineup.
Moreover, it deserves emphasis that this case presents
no question of the admissibility in evidence of anything
Wade said or did at the lineup which implicates his
privilege. The Government offered no such evidence as
part of its case, and what came out about the lineup
proceedings on Wade's cross-examination of the bank
employees involved no violation of Wade's privilege.
II.
The fact that the lineup involved no violation of
Wade's privilege against self-incrimination does not, how-
ever, dispose of his contention that the courtroom identi-
fications should have been excluded because the lineup
was conducted without notice to and in the absence of
his counsel. Our rejection of the right to counsel claim
in Schmerber rested on our conclusion in that case that
"[n]o issue of counsel's ability to assist petitioner in re-
spect of any rights he did possess is presented." 384
U. S.. at 766. In contrast, in this case it is urged that
the assistance of counsel at the lineup was indispensable
OCTOBER TERM, 1966.
Opinion of the Court. 388 U. S.
to protect Wade's most basic right as a criminal de-

fendant-his right to a fair trial at which the witnesses
against him might be meaningfully cross-examined.
The Framers of the Bill of Rights envisaged a broader
role for counsel than under the practice then prevailing
in England of merely advising his client in "matters of
law," and eschewing any responsibility for "matters of
fact." 2 The constitutions in at least 11 of the 13 States
expressly or impliedly abolished this distinction. Powell
v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 60-65; Note, 73 Yale L. J.
1000, 1030-1033 (1964). "Though the colonial provisions
about counsel were in accord on few things, they agreed
on the necessity of abolishing the facts-law distinction;
the colonists appreciated that if a defendant were forced
to stand alone against the state, his case was fore-
doomed." 73 Yale L. J., supra, at 1033-1034. This back-
ground is reflected in the scope given by our decisions to
the Sixth Amendment's guarantee to an accused of the
assistance of counsel for his defense. When the Bill of
Rights was adopted, there were no organized police forces
as we know them today.3 The accused confronted the
prosecutor and the witnesses against him, and the evi-
dence was marshalled, largely at the trial itself. In con-
trast, today's law enforcement machinery involves criti-
cal confrontations of the accused by the prosecution at
pretrial proceedings where the results might well settle
the accused's fate and reduce the trial itself to a mere
formality. In recognition of these realities of modem
criminal prosecution, our cases have construed the Sixth
Amendment guarantee to apply to "critical" stages of
the proceedings. The guarantee reads: "In all criminal
2 See Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 60-65; Beaney, Right to
Counsel in American Courts 8-26.
' See Note, 73 Yale L. J. 1000, 1040-1042 (1964); Comment, 53
Calif. L. Rev. 337, 347-348 (1965).
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to

have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." (Em-
phasis supplied.) The plain wording of this guarantee
thus encompasses counsel's assistance whenever necessary
to assure a meaningful "defence."
As early as Powell v. Alabama, supra, we recognized
that the period from arraignment to trial was "perhaps
the most critical period of the proceedings . . . ," id., at
57, during which the accused "requires the guiding hand
of counsel . . . ," id., at 69, if the guarantee is not to prove
an empty right. That principle has since been applied
to require the assistance of counsel at the type of arraign-
ment-for example, that provided by Alabama-where
certain rights might be sacrificed or lost: "What hap-
pens there may affect the whole trial. Available de-
fenses may be irretrievably lost, if not then and there
asserted . . . ." Hamiltan v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52, 54.
See White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59. The principle
was also applied in Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S.
201, where we held that incriminating statements of the
defendant should have been excluded from evidence
when it appeared that they were overheard by federal
agents who, without notice to the defendant's lawyer,
arranged a meeting between the defendant and an ac-
complice turned informant. We said, quoting a concur-
ring opinion in Spano v. New York, 360 U. S. 315, 326,
that "[ainything less . . . might deny a defendant
'effective representation by counsel at the only stage
when legal aid and advice would help him.'" 377 U. S.,
at 204.
In Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S.478, we drew upon
the rationale of Hamilton and Massiah in holding that
the right to counsel was guaranteed at the point where
the accused, prior to arraignment, was subjected to
secret interrogation despite repeated requests to see his
lawyer. We again noted the necessity of counsel's pres-
OCTOBER TERM, 1966.

ence if the accused was to have a fair opportunity to
present a defense at the trial itself:
"The rule sought by the State here, however,
would make the trial no more than an appeal from
the interrogation; and the 'right to use counsel at
the formal trial [would be] a very hollow thing
[if], for all practical purposes, the conviction is al-
ready assured by pretrial examination'. . . . 'One
can imagine a cynical prosecutor saying: "Let them
have the most illustrious counsel, now. They can't
escape the noose. There is nothing that counsel can
do for them at the trial."'" 378 U. S., at 487-488.
Finally in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, the rules
established for custodial interrogation included the right
to the presence of counsel. The result was rested on
our finding that this and the other rules were necessary
to safeguard the privilege against self-incrimination
from being jeopardized by such interrogation.
Of course, nothing decided or said in the opinions
in the cited cases links the right to counsel only to pro-
tection of Fifth Amendment rights. Rather those deci-
sions "no more than reflect a constitutional principle
established as long ago as Powell v. Alabama . ... "
Massiah v. United States, supra, at 205. It is central to
that principle that in addition to counsel's presence at
trial," the accused is guaranteed that he need not stand
alone against the State at any stage of the prosecution,
formal or informal, in court or out, where counsel's ab-
sence might derogate from the accused's right to a fair
trial.' The security of that right is as much the aim of the
right to counsel as it is of the other guarantees of the
4 See, e. g., Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45; Hamilton v. Ala-
bama, 368 U. S. 52; White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59; Escobedo v.
Illinois, 378 U. S. 478; Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201.
5 See cases cited n. 4, supra; Avery v. Alabama, 308 U. S. 444, 446.
Sixth Amendment-the right of the accused to a speedy

and public trial by an impartial jury, his right to be in-
formed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and his
right to be confronted with the witnesses against him and
to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor. The presence of counsel at such critical confron-
tations, as at the trial itself, operates to assure that the
accused's interests will be protected consistently with our
adversary theory of criminal prosecution. Cf. Pointer v.
Texas, 380 U. S. 400.
In sum, the principle of Powell v. Alabama and suc-
ceeding cases requires that we scrutinize any pretrial
confrontation of the accused to determine whether the
presence of his counsel is necessary to preserve the de-
fendant's basic right to a fair trial as affected by his
right meaningfully to cross-examine the witnesses against
him and to have effective assistance of counsel at the
trial itself. It calls upon us to analyze whether poten-
tial substantial prejudice to defendant's rights inheres
in the particular confrontation and the ability of counsel
to help avoid that prejudice.
III.
The Government characterizes the lineup as a mere
preparatory step in the gathering of the prosecution's
evidence, not different-for Sixth Amendment pur-
poses-from various other preparatory steps, such as
systematized or scientific analyzing of the accused's
fingerprints, blood sample, clothing, hair, and the like.
We think there are differences which preclude such
stages being characterized as critical stages at which
the accused has the right to the presence of his counsel.
Knowledge of the techniques of science and technology
is sufficiently available, and the variables in techniques
few enough, that the accused has the opportunity for a
meaningful confrontation of the Government's case at
228 OCTOBER TERM, 1966.
Opinion of the Court. 388 U.S.
trial through the ordinary processes of cross-examination

of the Government's expert witnesses and the presenta-
tion of the evidence of his own experts. The denial of
a right to have his counsel present at such analyses does
not therefore violate the Sixth Amendment; they are
not critical stages since there is minimal risk that his
counsel's absence at such stages might derogate from his
right to a fair trial.
IV.
But the confrontation compelled by the State between
the accused and the victim or witnesses to a crime to
elicit identification evidence is peculiarly riddled with
innumerable dangers and variable factors which might
seriously, even crucially, derogate from a fair trial. The
vagaries of eyewitness identification are well-known;
the annals of criminal law are rife with instances of
mistaken identification.' Mr. Justice Frankfurter once
said: "What is the worth of identification testimony
even when uncontradicted? The identification of stran-
gers is proverbially untrustworthy. The hazards of such
testimony are established by a formidable number of
instances in the records of English and American trials.
These instances are recent-not due to the brutalities
of ancient criminal procedure." The Case of Sacco and
Vanzetti 30 (1927). A major factor contributing to the
high incidence of miscarriage of justice from mistaken
identification has been the degree of suggestion inherent
in the manner in which the prosecution presents the sus-
pect to witnesses for pretrial identification. A commenta-
6 Borchard, Convicting the Innocent; Frank & Frank, Not Guilty;

Wall, Eye-Witness Identification in Criminal Cases; 3 Wigmore, Evi-
dence § 786a (3d ed. 1940); Rolph, Personal Identity; Gross, Crim-
inal Investigation 47-54 (Jackson ed. 1962); Williams, Proof of
Guilt 83-98 (1955); Wills, Circumstantial Evidence 192-205 (7th ed.
1937); Wigmore, The Science of Judicial Proof §§ 250-253 (3d ed.
1937).
tor has observed that "[t] he influence of improper sugges-

tion upon identifying witnesses probably accounts for
more miscarriages of justice than any other single factor-
perhaps it is responsible for more such errors than all other
factors combined." Wall, Eye-Witness Identification in
Criminal Cases 26. Suggestion can be created intention-
ally or unintentionally in many subtle ways.7 And the
dangers for the suspect are particularly grave when the
witness' opportunity for observation was insubstantial,
and thus his susceptibility to suggestion the greatest.
Moreover, "[i] t is a matter of common experience that,
once a witness has picked out the accused at the line-up,
he is not likely to go back on his word later on, so that
in practice the issue of identity may (in the absence of
other relevant evidence) for all practical purposes be
determined there and then, before the trial." 8
The pretrial confrontation for purpose of identification
may take the form of a lineup, also known as an "identi-
fication parade" or "showup," as in the present case, or
presentation of the suspect alone to the witness, as in
Stovall v. Denno, supra. It is obvious that risks of sug-
gestion attend either form of confrontation and increase
the dangers inhering in eyewitness identification.' But
See Wall, supra, n. 6, at 26-65; Murray, The Criminal Lineup at
Home and Abroad, 1966 Utah L. Rev. 610; Napley, Problems of
Effecting the Presentation of the Case for a Defendant, 66 Col.
L. Rev. 94, 98-99 (1966); Williams, Identification Parades, [1955]
Crim. L. Rev. (Eng.) 525; Paul, Identification of Accused Persons,
12 Austl. L. J. 42 (1938); Houts, From Evidence to Proof 25;
Williams & Hammelmann, Identification Parades, Parts I & II, [1963]
Crim. L. Rev. 479-490, 545-555; Gorphe, Showing Prisoners to Wit-
nesses for Identification, 1 Am. J. Police Sci. 79 (1930); Wigmore,
The Science of Judicial Proof, supra, n. 6, at § 253; Devlin, The
Criminal Prosecution in England 70; Williams, Proof of Guilt 95-97.
8 Williams & Hammelmann, Identification Parades, Part I, [1963]
Crim. L. Rev. 479, 482.
9 Williams & Hammelmann, Identification Parades, Part I, supra,
n. 7.
as is the case with secret interrogations, there is serious

difficulty in depicting what transpires at lineups and
other forms of identification confrontations. "Privacy
results in secrecy and this in turn results in a gap in
our knowledge as to what in fact goes on.. . ." Miranda
v. Arizona, supra, at 448. For the same reasons, the
defense can seldom reconstruct the manner and mode of
lineup identification for judge or jury at trial. Those
participating in a lineup with the accused may often be
police officers; 1" in any event, the participants' names
are rarely recorded or divulged at trial.11 The impedi-
ments to an objective observation are increased when the
victim is the witness. Lineups are prevalent in rape and
robbery prosecutions and present a particular hazard
that a victim's understandable outrage may excite venge-
ful or spiteful motives.1" In any event, neither witnesses
nor lineup participants are apt to be alert for conditions
prejudicial to the suspect. And if they were, it would
likely be of scant benefit to the suspect since neither
witnesses nor lineup participants are likely to be schooled
in the detection of suggestive influences. 3 Improper in-
10 See Wall, supra, n. 6, at 57-59; see, e. g., People v. Boney, 28 Ill.
2d 505, 192 N. E. 2d 920 (1963); People v. James, 218 Cal. App. 2d
166, 32 Cal. Rptr. 283 (1963).
11 See Rolph, Personal Identity 50: "The bright burden of identity,
at these parades, is lifted from the innocent participants to hover
about the suspect, leaving the rest featureless and unknown and
without interest."
12 See Williams & Hammelmann, Identification Parades, Part II,
[1963] Crim. L. Rev. 545, 546; Borchard, Convicting the Innocent

367.
1 An additional impediment to the detection of such influences
by participants, including the suspect, is the physical conditions
often surrounding the conduct of the lineup. In many, lights shine
on the stage in such a way that the suspect cannot see the witness.
See Gilbert v. United States, 366 F. 2d 923 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1966).
In some a one-way mirror is used and what is said on the witness'
fluences may go undetected by a suspect, guilty or not,

who experiences the emotional tension which we might
expect in one being confronted with potential accusers."
Even when he does observe abuse, if he has a criminal
record he may be reluctant to take the stand and open
up the admission of prior convictions. Moreover, any
protestations by the suspect of the fairness of the lineup
made at trial are likely to be in vain; 15 the jury's choice
is between the accused's unsupported version and that
of the police officers present. 6 In short, the accused's
side cannot be heard. See Rigney v. Hendrick, 355 F. 2d 710,

711, n. 2 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1965); Aaron v. State, 273 Ala. 337, 139 So.
2d 309 (1961).
14 Williams & Hammelmann, Part I, supra, n. 7, at 489; Napley,
supra, n.7, at 99.

15 See In re Groban, 352 U. S. 330, 340 (BLACK, J., dissenting).
The difficult position of defendants in attempting to protest the
manner of pretrial identification is illustrated by the many state
court cases in which contentions of blatant abuse rested on their
unsupportable allegations, usually controverted by the police officers
present. See, e. g., People v. Shields, 70 Cal. App. 2d 628, 634-635,
161 P. 2d 475, 478-479 (1945); People v. Hicks, 22 Ill. 2d 364, 176
N. E. 2d 810 (1961); State v. Hill, 193 Kan. 512, 394 P. 2d 106
(1964); Redmon v. Commonwealth, 321 S. W. 2d 397 (Ky. Ct.
App. 1959); Lubinski v. State, 180 Md. 1, 8, 22 A. 2d 455, 459 (1941).
For a striking case in which hardly anyone agreed upon what oc-
curred at the lineup, including who identified whom, see Johnson v.
State, 237 Md. 283, 206 A. 2d 138 (1965).
16 An instructive example of the defendant's predicament may be
found in Proctor v. State, 223 Md. 394, 164 A. 2d 708 (1960). A
prior identification is admissible in Maryland only under the salu-
tary rule that it cannot have been made "under conditions of unfair-
ness or unreliability." Id., at 401, 164 A. 2d, at 712. Against the
defendant's contention that these conditions had not been met, the
Court stated:
"In the instant case, there are no such facts as, in our judgment,
would call for a finding that the identification . ..was made under
conditions of unfairness or unreliability. The relatively large number
of persons put into the room together for [the victim] to look at
OCTOBER TERM, 1966.
inability effectively to reconstruct at trial any unfairness

that occurred at the lineup may deprive him of his only
opportunity meaningfully to attack the credibility of
the witness' courtroom identification.
What facts have been disclosed in specific cases about
the conduct of pretrial confrontations for identification
illustrate both the potential for substantial prejudice
to the accused at that stage and the need for its revela-
tion at trial. A commentator provides some striking
examples:
"In a Canadian case . . .the defendant had been
picked out of a line-up of six men, of which he was
the only Oriental. In other cases, a black-haired
suspect was placed among a group of light-haired
persons, tall suspects have been made to stand with
short non-suspects, and, in a case where the perpe-
trator of the crime was known to be a youth, a
suspect under twenty was placed in a line-up with
five other persons, all of whom were forty or over." "
Similarly state reports, in the course of describing prior
identifications admitted as evidence of guilt, reveal
is one circumstance indicating fairness, and the fact that the police
officer was unable to remember the appearances of the others and
could not recall if they had physical characteristics similar to [the
defendant's] or not is at least suggestive that they were not of any
one type or that they all differed markedly in looks from the de-
fendant. There is no evidence that the Police Sergeant gave the
complaining witness any indication as to which of the thirteen
men was the defendant; the Sergeant's testimony is simply that he
asked [the victim] if he could identify [the defendant] after having
put the thirteen men in the courtroom."
17 Wall, Eye-Witness Identification in Criminal Cases 53. For
other such examples see Houts, From Evidence to Proof 25; Frank-
furter, The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti 12-14, 30-32; 3 Wigmore,
Evidence § 786a, at 164, n. 2 (3d ed. 1940); Paul, Identification of
Accused Persons, 12 Austl. L. J. 42, 44 (1938); Rolph, Personal
Identity 34-43.
numerous instances of suggestive procedures, for example,

that all in the lineup but the suspect were known to the
identifying witness, 8 that the other participants in a
lineup were grossly dissimilar in appearance to the
suspect, 9 that only the suspect was required to wear
distinctive clothing which the culprit allegedly wore,2 °
that the witness is told by the police that they have
caught the culprit after which the defendant is brought
before the witness alone or is viewed in jail, -' that the
suspect is pointed out before or during a lineup,2 - and
that the participants in the lineup are asked to try on an
article of clothing which fits only the suspect. 3
The potential for improper influence is illustrated by
the circumstances, insofar as they appear, surrounding
the prior identifications in the three cases we decide
today. In the present case, the testimony of the identi-
18 See People v. James, 218 Cal. App. 2d 166, 170-171, 32 Cal.

Rptr. 283, 286 (1963); People v. Boney, 28 Ill. 2d 505, 192 N. E.
2d 920 (1963).
19See Fredericksen v. United States, 105 U. S. App. D. C. 262,
266 F. 2d 463 (1959); People v. Adell, 75 Ill. App. 2d 385, 221 N. E.
2d 72 (1966); State v. Hill, 193 Kan. 512, 394 P. 2d 106 (1964);
People v. Seppi, 221 N. Y. 62, 116 N. E. 793 (1917); State v. Dug-
gan, 215 Ore. 151, 162, 333 P. 2d 907, 912 (1958).
20 See People v. Crenshaw, 15 Ill. 2d 458, 460, 155 N. E. 2d 599,
602 (1959); Presley v. State, 224 Md. 550, 168 A. 2d 510 (1961);
State v. Ramirez, 76 N. M. 72, 412 P. 2d 246 (1966); State v.
Bazemore, 193 N. C. 336, 137 S. E. 172 (1927); Barrett v. State,
190 Tenn. 366, 229 S. W. 2d 516 (1950).
21 See Aaron v. State, 273 Ala. 337, 139 So. 2d 309 (1961); Bishop
v. State, 236 Ark. 12, 364 S. W. 2d 676 (1963); People v. Thompson,

406 Ill. 555, 94 N. E. 2d 349 (1950); People v. Berne, 384 Ill. 334,
51 N. E. 2d 578 (1943); People v. Martin, 304 Ill. 494, 136 N. E.
711 (1922); Barrett v. State, 190 Tenn. 366, 229 S. W. 2d 516
(1950).
22 See People v. Clark, 28 Ill. 2d 423, 192 N. E. 2d 851 (1963);
Gillespie v. State, 355 P. 2d 451, 454 (Okla. Cr. 1960).

2S See People v. Parham, 60 Cal. 2d 378, 384 P. 2d 1001 (1963).
fying witnesses elicited on cross-examination revealed

that those witnesses were taken to the courthouse and
seated in the courtroom to await assembly of the lineup.
The courtroom faced on a hallway observable to the
witnesses through an open door. The cashier testified
that she saw Wade "standing in the hall" within sight
of an FBI agent. Five or six other prisoners later
appeared in the hall. The vice president testified that
he saw a person in the hall in the custody of the agent
who "resembled the person that we identified as the one
that had entered the bank." 21
The lineup in Gilbert, supra, was conducted in an
auditorium in which some 100 witnesses to several
alleged state and federal robberies charged to Gilbert
made wholesale identifications of Gilbert as the rob-
ber in each other's presence, a procedure said to be
fraught with dangers of suggestion."" And the vice of
suggestion created by the identification in Stovall, supra,
was the presentation to the witness of the suspect alone
handcuffed to police officers. It is hard to imagine a
situation more clearly conveying the suggestion to the
witness that the one presented is believed guilty by the
police. See Frankfurter, The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti
31-32.
The few cases that have surfaced therefore reveal
the existence of a process attended with hazards of
serious unfairness to the criminal accused and strongly
suggest the plight of the more numerous defendants who
are unable to ferret out suggestive influences in the
24See Wall, supra, n. 6, at 48; Napley, supra, n. 7, at 99:
"[W]hile many identification parades are conducted by the police
with scrupulous regard for fairness, it is not unknown for the identify-
ing witness to be placed in a position where he can see the suspect
before the parade forms . ..."
25 Williams & Hammelmann, Part I, supra, n. 7, at 486; Burtt,
Applied Psychology 254-255.
secrecy of the confrontation. We do not assume that

these risks are the result of police procedures inten-
tionally designed to prejudice an accused. Rather we
assume they derive from the dangers inherent in eye-
witness identification and the suggestibility inherent in
the context of the pretrial identification. Williams &
Hammelmann, in one of the most comprehensive studies
of such forms of identification, said, "[T]he fact that the
police themselves have, in a given case, little or no doubt
that the man put up for identification has committed
the offense, and that their chief pre-occupation is with
the problem of getting sufficient proof, because he has
not 'come clean,' involves a danger that this persuasion
may communicate itself even in a doubtful case to the
witness in some way . . . .. Identification Parades,
Part I, [1963] Crim. L. Rev. 479, 483.
Insofar as the accused's conviction may rest on a
courtroom identification in fact the fruit of a suspect
pretrial identification which the accused is helpless to
subject to effective scrutiny at trial, the accused is de-
prived of that right of cross-examination which is an
essential safeguard to his right to confront the witnesses
against him. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400. And
even though cross-examination is a precious safeguard
to a fair trial, it cannot be viewed as an absolute
assurance of accuracy and reliability. Thus in the pres-
ent context, where so many variables and pitfalls exist,
the first line of defense must be the prevention of unfair-
ness and the lessening of the hazards of eyewitness
identification at the lineup itself. The trial which might
determine the accused's fate may well not be that in
the courtroom but that at the pretrial confrontation, with
the State aligned against the accused, the witness the sole
jury, and the accused unprotected against the overreach-
ing, intentional or unintentional, and with little or no
effective appeal from the judgment there rendered by the

witness-"that's the man."
Since it appears that there is grave potential for preju-
dice, intentional or not, in the pretrial lineup, which
may not be capable of reconstruction at trial, and since
presence of counsel itself can often avert prejudice and
assure a meaningful confrontation at trial, 6 there can be
211One commentator proposes a model statute providing not only

for counsel, but other safeguards as well:
"Most, if not all, of the attacks on the lineup process could be
averted by a uniform statute modeled upon the best features of
the civilian codes. Any proposed statute should provide for the
right to counsel during any lineup or during any confrontation.
Provision should be made that any person, whether a victim or a
witness, must give a description of the suspect before he views any
arrested person. A written record of this description should be re-
quired, and the witness should be made to sign it. This written
record would be available for inspection by defense counsel for copy-
ing before the trial and for use at the trial in testing the accuracy
of the identification made during the lineup and during the trial.
"This ideal statute would require at least six persons in addition
to the accused in a lineup, and these persons would have to be of
approximately the same height, weight, coloration of hair and skin,
and bodily types as the suspect. In addition, all of these men
should, as nearly as possible, be dressed alike. If distinctive garb
was used during the crime, the suspect should not be forced to wear
similar clothing in the lineup unless all of the other persons are
similarly garbed. A complete written report of the names, addresses,
descriptive details of the other persons in the lineup, and of every-
thing which transpired during the identification would be mandatory.
This report would include everything stated by the identifying wit-
ness during this step, including any reasons given by him as to what
features, etc., have sparked his recognition.
"This statute should permit voice identification tests by having
each person in the lineup repeat identical innocuous phrases, and
it would be impermissible to force the use of words allegedly used
during a criminal act.
"The statute would enjoin the police from suggesting to any viewer
that one or more persons in the lineup had been arrested as a sus-
pect. If more than one witness is to make an identification, each
little doubt that for Wade the post-indictment lineup

was a critical stage of the prosecution at which he was
"as much entitled to such aid [of counsel] . . . as at the
trial itself." Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 57. Thus
both Wade and his counsel should have been notified of
the impending lineup, and counsel's presence should have
been a requisite to conduct of the lineup, absent an
"intelligent waiver." See Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U. S.
506. No substantial countervailing policy considerations
have been advanced against the requirement of the pres-
ence of counsel. Concern is expressed that the require-
ment will forestall prompt identifications and result in
obstruction of the confrontations. As for the first, we
note that in the two cases in which the right to counsel
is today held to apply, counsel had already been ap-
pointed and no argument is made in either case that
notice to counsel would have prejudicially delayed the
confrontations. Moreover, we leave open the question
whether the presence of substitute counsel might not
suffice where notification and presence of the suspect's
own counsel would result in prejudicial delay."7 And to
refuse to recognize the right to counsel for fear that
counsel will obstruct the course of justice is contrary to the
witness should be required to do so separately and should be for-

bidden to speak to another witness until all of them have completed
the process.
"The statute could require the use of movie cameras and tape
recorders to record the lineup process in those states which are
financially able to afford these devices. Finally, the statute should
provide that any evidence obtained as the result of a violation of
this statute would be inadmissible." Murray, The Criminal Lineup
at, Home and Abroad, 1966 Utah L. Rev. 610, 627-628.
2' Although the right to counsel usually means a right to the sus-
pect's own counsel, provision for substitute counsel may be justified
on the ground that the substitute counsel's presence may eliminate
the hazards which render the lineup a critical stage for the presence
of the suspect's own counsel.
OCTOBER TERM, 1966.
basic assumptions upon which this Court has operated

in Sixth Amendment cases. We rejected similar logic
in Miranda v. Arizona concerning presence of counsel
during custodial interrogation, 384 U. S., at 480-481:
"[A]n attorney is merely exercising the good pro-
fessional judgment he has been taught. This is
not cause for considering the attorney a menace to
law enforcement. He is merely carrying out what
he is sworn to do under his oath-to protect to the
extent of his ability the rights of his client. In ful-
filling this responsibility the attorney plays a vital
role in the administration of criminal justice under
our Constitution."
In our view counsel can hardly impede legitimate law
enforcement; on the contrary, for the reasons expressed,
law enforcement may be assisted by preventing the
infiltration of taint in the prosecution's identification
evidence.2 8 That result cannot help the guilty avoid
conviction but can only help assure that the right man
has been brought to justice. 9
21 Concern is also expressed that the presence of counsel will force
divulgence of the identity of government witnesses whose identity
the Government may want to conceal. To the extent that this is
a valid or significant state interest there are police practices com-
monly used to effect concealment, for example, masking the face.
29 Many other nations surround the lineup with safeguards against.
prejudice to the suspect. In England the suspect must be allowed

the presence of his solicitor or a friend, Napley, supra, n. 7, at
98-99; Germany requires the presence of retained counsel; France
forbids the confrontation of the suspect in the absence of his coun-
sel; Spain, Mexico, and Italy provide detailed procedures prescrib-
ing the conditions under which confrontation must occur under the
supervision of a judicial officer who sees to it that the proceedings
are officially recorded to assure adequate scrutiny at trial. Murray,
The Criminal Lineup at Home and Abroad, 1966 Utah L. Rev.
610, 621-627.
Legislative or other regulations, such as those of local

police departments, which eliminate the risks of abuse
and unintentional suggestion at lineup proceedings and
the impediments to meaningful confrontation at trial
may also remove the basis for regarding the stage as
"critical." But neither Congress nor the federal
authorities have seen fit to provide a solution. What we
hold today "in no way creates a constitutional strait-
jacket which will handicap sound efforts at reform, nor
is it intended to have this effect." Miranda v. Arizona,
supra, at 467.
V.
We come now to the question whether the denial of
Wade's motion to strike the courtroom identification by
the bank witnesses at trial because of the absence of
his counsel at the lineup required, as the Court of Appeals
held, the grant of a new trial at which such evidence is
30 Thirty years ago Wigmore suggested a "scientific method" of

pretrial identification "to reduce the risk of error hitherto inherent
in such proceedings." Wigmore, The Science of Judicial Proof 541
(3d ed. 1937). Under this approach, at least 100 talking films
would be prepared of men from various occupations, races, etc.
Each would be photographed in a number of stock movements,
with and without hat and coat, and would read aloud a standard
passage. The suspect would be filmed in the same manner. Some
25 of the films would be shown in succession in a special projection
room in which each witness would be provided an electric button
which would activate a board backstage when pressed to indicate
that the witness had identified a given person. Provision would be
made for the degree of hesitancy in the identification to be indicated
by the number of presses. Id., at 540-541. Of course, the more
systematic and scientific a process or proceeding, including one for
purposes of identification, the less the impediment to reconstruction
of the conditions bearing upon the reliability of that process or pro-
ceeding at trial. See discussion of fingerprint and like tests, Part III,
supra, and of handwriting exemplars in Gilbert v. California, supra.
OCTOBER TERM, 1966.
to be excluded. We do not think this disposition can be

justified without first giving the Government the oppor-
tunity to establish by clear and convincing evidence that
the in-court identifications were based upon observations
of the suspect other than the lineup identification. See
Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U. S. 52, 79,
n. 18."' Where, as here, the admissibility of evidence of
the lineup identification itself is not involved, a per 8e
rule of exclusion of courtroom identification would be
unjustified. 2 See Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S.
338, 341. A rule limited solely to the exclusion of testi-
mony concerning identification at the lineup itself,
without regard to admissibility of the courtroom identi-
fication, would render the right to counsel an empty one.
The lineup is most often used, as in the present case, to
crystallize the witnesses' identification of the defendant
for future reference. We have already noted that the
lineup identification will have that effect. The State
may then rest upon the witnesses' unequivocal court-
room identification, and not mention the pretrial identifi-
cation as part of the State's case at trial. Counsel is
then in the predicament in which Wade's counsel found
himself-realizing that possible unfairness at the lineup
may be the sole means of attack upon the unequivocal
courtroom identification, and having to probe in the dark
31See Goldstein v. United States, 316 U. S. 114, 124, n. 1
(Murphy, J., dissenting). "[A]fter an accused sustains the initial
burden, imposed by Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, of
proving to the satisfaction of the trial judge in the preliminary hear-
ing that wire-tapping was unlawfully employed, as petitioners did
here, it is only fair that the burden should then shift to the Govern-
ment to convince the trial judge that its proof had an independent
origin."
32 We reach a contrary conclusion in Gilbert v. California, supra,
as to the admissibility of the witness' testimony that he also iden-
tified the accused at the lineup.
in an attempt to discover and reveal unfairness, while

bolstering the government witness' courtroom identifi-
cation by bringing out and dwelling upon his prior iden-
tification. Since counsel's presence at the lineup would
equip him to attack not only the lineup identification
but the courtroom identification as well, limiting the
impact of violation of the right to counsel to exclusion
of evidence only of identification at the lineup itself dis-
regards a critical element of that right.
We think it follows that the proper test to be applied
in these situations is that quoted in Wong Sun v. United
States, 371 U. S.471, 488, "''[W]hether, granting estab-
lishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which
instant objection is made has been come at by exploita-
tion of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently
distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.'
Maguire, Evidence of Guilt 221 (1959)." See also Hoffa
v. United States, 385 U. S.293, 309. Application of this
test in the present context requires consideration of vari-
ous factors; for example, the prior opportunity to observe
the alleged criminal act, the existence of any discrepancy
between any pre-lineup description and the defendant's
actual description, any identification prior to lineup of
another person, the identification by picture of the de-
fendant prior to the lineup, failure to identify the
defendant on a prior occasion, and the lapse of time
between the alleged act and the lineup identification.
It is also relevant to consider those facts which, despite
the absence of counsel, are disclosed concerning the con-
duct of the lineup."
" Thus it is not the case that "lilt matters not how well the
witness knows the suspect, whether the witness is the suspect's

mother, brother, or long-time associate, and no matter how long or
well the witness observed the perpetrator at the scene of the crime."
Such factors will have an important bearing upon the true basis of
OCTOBER TERM, 1966.
We doubt that the Court of Appeals applied the proper

test for exclusion of the in-court identification of the
two witnesses. The court stated that "it cannot be said
with any certainty that they would have recognized
appellant at the time of trial if this intervening lineup
had not occurred," and that the testimony of the two
withesses "may well have been colored by the illegal
procedure [and] was prejudicial." 358 F. 2d, at 560.
Moreover, the court was persuaded, in part, by the
"compulsory verbal responses made by Wade at the in-
stance of the Special Agent." Ibid. This implies the
erroneous holding that Wade's privilege against self-
incrimination was violated so that the denial of counsel
required exclusion.
On the record now before us we cannot make the
determination whether the in-court identifications had
an independent origin. This was not an issue at trial,
although there is some evidence relevant to a determina-
tion. That inquiry is most properly made in the District
Court. We therefore think the appropriate procedure
to be followed is to vacate the conviction pending a
hearing to determine whether the in-court identifications
had an independent source, or whether, in any event, the
introduction of the evidence was harmless error, Chap-
man v. California, 386 U. S. 18, and for the District
Court to reinstate the conviction or order a new trial, as
may be proper. See United States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co.,
355 U. S. 233, 245-246.
the witness' in-court identification. Moreover, the State's inability

to bolster the witness' courtroom identification by introduction of
the lineup identification .itself, see Gilbert v. California, supra, will
become less significant the more the evidence of other opportunities
of the witness to observe the defendant. Thus where the witness is
a "kidnap victim who has lived for days with his abductor" the value
to the State of admission of the lineup identification is indeed mar-
ginal, and such identification would be a mere formality.
218 Opinion of BLACK, J.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and

the case is remanded to that court with direction to enter
a new judgment vacating the conviction and remanding
the case to the District Court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins the opinion of the Court

except for Part I, from which he dissents for the reasons
expressed in the opinion of MR. JUSTICE FORTAS.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS joins the opinion of the Court
except for Part I. On that phase of the case he adheres
to the dissenting views in Schmerber v. California, 384
U. S. 757, 772-779, since he believes that compulsory
lineup violates the privilege against self-incrimination
contained in the Fifth Amendment.
MR. JUSTICE CLARK, concurring.

With reference to the lineup point involved in this case
I cannot, for the life of me, see why a lineup is not a
critical stage of the prosecution. Identification of the
suspect-a' prerequisite to establishment of guilt-occurs
at this stage, and with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S.
436 (1966), on the books, the requirement of the pres-
ence of counsel arises, unless waived by the suspect. I
dissented in Miranda but I am bound by it now, as we
all are. Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 (1966),
precludes petitioner's claim of self-incrimination. I
therefore join the opinion of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting in part and concurring

in part.
On March 23, 1965, respondent Wade was indicted for
robbing a bank; on April 2, he was arrested; and on
April 26, the court appointed a lawyer to represent him.
Opinion of BLACK, J. 388 U. S.
Fifteen days later, while Wade was still in custody, an

FBI agent took him and several other prisoners into a
room at the courthouse, directed each to participate
in a lineup wearing strips of tape on his face and to
speak the words used by the robber at the bank. This
was all done in order to let the bank employee wit-
nesses look at Wade for identification purposes. Wade's
lawyer was not notified of or present at the lineup to
protect his client's interests. At Wade's trial, two bank
employees identified him in the courtroom. Wade ob-
jected to this testimony, when, on cross-examination,
his counsel elicited from these witnesses the fact that
they had seen Wade in the lineup. He contended that
by forcing him to participate in the lineup, wear strips
of tape on his face, and repeat the words used by the
robber, all without counsel, the Government had (1) com-
pelled him to be a witness against himself in violation
of the Fifth Amendment, and (2) deprived him of the
assistance of counsel for his defense in violation of the
Sixth Amendment.
The Court in Part I of its opinion rejects Wade's
Fifth Amendment contention. From that I dissent. In
Parts II-IV of its opinion, the Court sustains Wade's
claim of denial of right to counsel in the out-of-court
lineup, and in that I concur. In Part V, the Court re-
mands the case to the District Court to consider whether
the courtroom identification of Wade was the fruit of
the illegal lineup, and, if it was, to grant him a new trial
unless the court concludes that the courtroom identifica-
tion was harmless error. I would reverse the Court of
Appeals' reversal of Wade's conviction, but I would not
remand for further proceedings. Since the prosecution
did not use the out-of-court lineup identification against
Wade at his trial, I believe the conviction should be
affirmed.
I.
In rejecting Wade's claim that his privilege against
self-incrimination was violated by compelling him to
appear in the lineup wearing the tape and uttering the
words given him by the police, the Court relies on the
recent holding in Schmerber v. California,384 U. S. 757.
In that case the Court held that taking blood from a
man's body against his will in order to convict him of a
crime did not compel him to be a witness against him-
self. I dissented from that holding, 384 U. S., at 773,
and still dissent. The Court's reason for its holding was
that the sample of Schmerber's blood taken in order to
convict him of crime was neither "testimonial" nor "com-
municative" evidence. I think it was both. It seems
quite plain to me that the Vifth Amendment's Self-
incrimination Clause was designed to bar the Govern-
ment from forcing any person to supply proof of his own
crime, precisely what Schmerber was forced to do when
he was forced to supply his blood. The Government
simply took his blood against his will and over his coun-
sel's protest for the purpose of convicting him of crime.
So here, having Wade in its custody awaiting trial to see
if he could or would be convicted of crime, the Govern-
ment forced him to stand in a lineup, wear strips on his
face, and speak certain words, in order to make it possible
for government witnesses to identify him as a criminal.
Had Wade been compelled to utter these or any other
words in open court, it is plain that he would have been
entitled to a new trial because of having been compelled
to be a witness against himself. Being forced by the Gov-
ernment to help convict himself and to supply evidence
against himself by talking outside the courtroom is
equally violative of his constitutional right not to be
compelled to be a witness against himself. Conse-
quently, because of this violation of the Fifth Amend-
OCTOBER TERM, 1966.
Opinion of BLACK, J. 388 U. S.
ment, and not because of my own personal view that the

Government's conduct was "unfair," "prejudicial," or "im-
proper," I would prohibit the prosecution's use of lineup
identification at trial.
II.
I agree with the Court, in large part because of the
reasons it gives, that failure to notify Wade's counsel that
Wade was to be put in a lineup by government officers
and to be forced to talk and wear tape on his face denied
Wade the right to counsel in violation of the Sixth
Amendment. Once again, my reason for this conclusion
is solely the Sixth Amendment's guarantee that "the
accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance
of Counsel for his defence." As this Court's opinion
points out, "[t]he plain wording of this guarantee thus
encompasses counsel's assistance whenever necessary to
assure a meaningful 'defence.'" And I agree with the
Court that a lineup is a "critical stage" of the criminal
proceedings against an accused, because it is a stage at
which the Government makes use of his custody to obtain
crucial evidence against him. Besides counsel's presence
at the lineup being necessary to protect the defendant's
specific constitutional rights to confrontation and the
assistance of counsel at the trial itself, the assistance of
counsel at the lineup is also necessary to protect the
defendant's in-custody assertion of his privilege against
self-incrimination, Mirandav. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, for,
contrary to the Court, I believe that counsel may advise
the defendant not to participate in the lineup or to
participate only under certain conditions.
I agree with the Court that counsel's presence at the
lineup is necessary to protect the accused's right to a
"fair trial," only if by "fair trial" the Court means a
trial in accordance with the "Law of the Land" as spe-
cifically set out in the Constitution. But there are
implications in the Court's opinion that by a "fair trial"

the Court means a trial which a majority of this Court
deems to be "fair" and that a lineup is a "critical stage"
only because the Court, now assessing the "innumerable
dangers" which inhere in it, thinks it is such. That these
implications are justified is evidenced by the Court's sug-
gestion that "[1]egislative or other regulations ... which
eliminate the risks of abuse... at lineup proceedings...
may also remove the basis for regarding the stage as 'criti-
cal.' " And it is clear from the Court's opinion in Gil-
bert v. California,post, p. 263, that it is willing to make
the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of right to counsel de-
pendent on the Court's own view of whether a particular
stage of the proceedings-though "critical" in the sense
of the prosecution's gathering of evidence-is "critical"
to the Court's own view of a "fair trial." I am wholly
unwilling to make the specific constitutional right of
counsel dependent on judges' vague and transitory
notions of fairness and their equally transitory, though
thought to be empirical, assessment of the "risk that ...
counsel's absence . . . might derogate from . . . [a de-
fendant's] right to a fair trial." Ante, at 228. See
Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400, 412 (concurring opinion
of Goldberg, J.).
III.
I would reverse Wade's conviction without further ado
had the prosecution at trial made use of his lineup
identification either in place of courtroom identification
or to bolster in a harmful manner crucial courtroom
identification. But the prosecution here did neither of
these things. After prosecution witnesses under oath
identified Wade in the courtroom, it was the defense,
and not the prosecution, which brought out the prior
lineup identification. While stating that "a per se rule
of exclusion of courtroom identification would be unjusti-
fied," the Court, nevertheless, remands this case for "a
OCTOBER TERM, 1966.
Opinion of BLAcK, J. 388 U. S.
hearing to determine whether the in-court identifications

had an independent source," or were the tainted fruits
of the invalidly conducted lineup. From this holding
I dissent.
In the first place, even if this Court has power to
establish such a rule of evidence, I think the rule fash-
ioned by the Court is unsound. The "tainted fruit"
determination required by the Court involves more than
considerable difficulty. I think it is practically impos-
sible. How is a witness capable of probing the recesses
of his mind to draw a sharp line between a courtroom
identification due exclusively to an earlier lineup and a
courtroom identification due to memory not based on the
lineup? What kind of "clear and convincing evidence"
can the prosecution offer to prove upon what particular
events memories resulting in an in-court identification
rest? How long will trials be delayed while judges turn
psychologists to probe the subconscious minds of wit-
nesses? All these questions are posed but not answered
by the Court's opinion. In my view, the Fifth and Sixth-
Amendments are satisfied if the prosecution is precluded
from using lineup identification as either an alternative
to or corroboration of courtroom identification. If the
prosecution does neither and its witnesses under oath
identify the defendant in the courtroom, then I can find
no justification for stopping the trial in midstream to
hold a lengthy "tainted fruit" hearing. The fact of and
circumstances surrounding a prior lineup identification
might be used by the defense to impeach the credibility
of the in-court identifications, but not to exclude them
completely.
But more important, there is no constitutional provi-
sion upon which I can rely that directly or by implication
gives this Court power to establish what amounts to a
constitutional rule of evidence to govern, not only the
Federal Government, but the States in their trial of state
crimes under state laws in state courts. See Gilbert v.

California, 8upra. The Constitution deliberately reposed
in the States very broad power to create and to try crimes
according to their own rules and policies. Spencer v.
Texas, 385 U. S. 554. Before being deprived of this
power, the least that they can ask is that we should be
able to point to a federal constitutional provision that
either by express language or by necessary implication
grants us the power to fashion this novel rule of evidence
to govern their criminal trials. Cf. Berger v. New York,
ante, p. 70 (BLACK, J., dissenting). Neither Nardone
v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, nor Wang Sun v. United
States, 371 U. S. 471, both federal cases and both decided
"in other contexts," supports what the Court demands of
the States today.
Perhaps the Court presumes to write this constitu-
tional rule of evidence on the basis of the Fourteenth
Amendment's Due Process Clause. This is not the time
or place to consider that claim. Suffice it for me to say
briefly that I find no such authority in the Due Process
Clause. It undoubtedly provides that a person must be
tried in accordance with the "Law of the Land." Conse-
quently, it violates due process to try a person in a way
prohibited by the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments of
our written Constitution. But I have never been able to
subscribe to the dogma that the Due Process Clause
empowers this Court to declare any law, including a rule
of evidence, unconstitutional which it believes is con-
trary to tradition, decency, fundamental justice, or any
of the other wide-meaning words used by judges to
claim power under the Due Process Clause. See, e. g.,
Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165. I have an abiding
idea that if the Framers had wanted to let judges write
the Constitution on any such day-to-day beliefs of theirs,
they would have said so instead of so carefully defining
their grants and prohibitions in a written constitution.
OCTOBER TERM, 1966.
Opinion of WHITE, J. 388 U. S.
With no more authority than the Due Process Clause

I am wholly unwilling to tell the state or federal courts
that the United States Constitution forbids them to allow
courtroom identification without the prosecution's first
proving that the identification does not rest in whole or
in part on an illegal lineup. Should I do so, I would feel
that we are deciding what the Constitution is, not from
what it says, but from what we think it would have been
wise for the Framers to put in it. That to me would
be "judicial activism" at its worst. I would leave the
States and Federal Government free to decide their own
rules of evidence. That, I believe, is their constitutional
prerogative.
I would affirm Wade's conviction.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, whom MR. JUSTICE HARIiN and

MR. JUSTICE STEWART join, dissenting in part and con-
curring in part.
The Court has again propounded a broad constitutional
rule barring use of a wide spectrum of relevant and pro-
bative evidence, solely because a step in its ascertainment
or discovery occurs outside the presence of defense coun-
sel. This was the approach of the Court in Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U. S. 436. I objected then to what I thought
was an uncritical and doctrinaire approach without satis-
factory factual foundation. I have much the same view
of the present ruling and therefore dissent from the judg-
ment and from Parts II, IV, and V of the Court's opinion.
The Court's opinion is far-reaching. It proceeds first
by creating a new per se rule of constitutional law: a
criminal suspect cannot be subjected to a pretrial identi-
fication process in the absence of his counsel without
violating the Sixth Amendment. If he is, the State
may not buttress a later courtroom identification of the
witness by any reference to the previous identification.
Furthermore, the courtroom identification is not admis-
218 Opinion of WHImT, J.
sible at all unless the State can establish by clear and

convincing proof that the testimony is not the fruit of
the earlier identification made in the absence of defend-
ant's counsel-admittedly a heavy burden for the State
and probably an impossible one. To all intents and
purposes, courtroom identifications are barred if pre-
trial identifications have occurred without counsel being
present.
The rule applies to any lineup, to any other techniques
employed to produce an identification and a fortiori to
a face-to-face encounter between the witness and the
suspect alone, regardless of when the identification occurs,
in time or place, and whether before or after indictment
or information. It matters not how well the witness
knows the suspect, whether the witness is the suspect's
mother, brother, or long-time associate, and no matter
how long or well the witness observed the perpetrator
at the scene of the crime. The kidnap victim who has
lived for days with his abductor is in the same category
as the witness who has had only a fleeting glimpse of the
criminal. Neither may identify the suspect without
defendant's counsel being present. The same strictures
apply regardless of the number of other witnesses who
positively identify the defendant and regardless of the
corroborative evidence showing that it was the defendant
who had committed the crime.
The premise for the Court's rule is not the general
unreliability of eyewitness identifications nor the diffi-
culties inherent in observation, recall, and recognition.
The Court assumes a narrower evil as the basis for its
rule-improper police suggestion which contributes to
erroneous identifications. The Court apparently believes
that improper police procedures are so widespread that
a broad prophylactic rule must be laid down, requiring
the presence of counsel at all pretrial identifications, in
OCTOBER TERM, 1966.
order to detect recurring instances of police misconduct.,

I do not share this pervasive distrust of all official investi-
gations. None of the materials the Court relies upon
supports it. " Certainly, I would bow to solid fact, but
the Court quite obviously does not have before it any
reliable, comprehensive survey of current police practices
on which to base its new rule. Until it does, the Court
should avoid excluding relevant evidence from state
criminal trials. - Cf. Washington v. Texas, ante, p. 14.
The Court goes beyond assuming that a great majority
of the country's police departments are following im-
proper practices at pretrial identifications. To find the
lineup a "critical" stage of the proceeding and to exclude
identifications made in the absence of counsel, the Court
must also assume that police "suggestion," if it occurs
at all, leads to erroneous rather than accurate identifica-
tions and that reprehensible police conduct will have
an unavoidable and largely undiscoverable impact on the
trial. This in turn assumes that there is now no adequate
source from which defense counsel can learn about the
circumstances of the pretrial identification in order to
place before the jury all of the considerations which
should enter into an appraisal of courtroom identification
'Yet in Stovall v. Denno, post, p. 293, the Court recognizes that

improper police conduct in the identification process has not been
so widespread as to justify full retroactivity for its new rule.
2 In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 449, the Court noted that
O'Hara, Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation (1956) is a text

that has enjoyed extensive use among law enforcement agencies and
among students of police science. The quality of the work was said
to rest on the author's long service as observer, lecturer in police
science, and work as a federal crime investigator. O'Hara does not
suggest that the police should or do use identification machinery
improperly; instead he argues for techniques that would increase
the reliability of eyewitness identifications, and there is no reason
to suggest that O'Hara's views are not shared and practiced by the
majority of police departments throughout the land.
218 Opinion of WHITE, J.
evidence. But these are treacherous and unsupported

assumptions,' resting as they do on the notion that the
defendant will not be aware, that the police and the wit-
nesses will forget or prevaricate, that defense counsel will
be unable to bring out the truth and that neither jury,
judge, nor appellate court is a sufficient safeguard against
unacceptable police conduct occurring at a pretrial identi-
fication procedure. I am unable to share the Court's view
of the willingness of the police and the ordinary citizen-
witness to dissemble, either with respect to the identifica-
tion of the defendant or with respect to the circumstances
surrounding a pretrial identification.
There are several striking aspects to the Court's hold-
ing. First, the rule does not bar courtroom identifica-
tions where there have been no previous identifications
in the presence of the police, although when identified
in the courtroom, the defendant is known to be in cus-
tody and charged with the commission of a crime. Sec-
ond, the Court seems to say that if suitable legislative
standards were adopted for the conduct of pretrial iden-
tifications, thereby lessening the hazards in such con-
3 The instant case and its companions, Gilbert v. California,post,

p. 263, and Stovall v. Denno, post, p. 293, certainly lend no sup-
port to the Court's assumptions. The police conduct deemed im-
proper by the Court in the three cases seems to have come to light
at trial in the ordinary course of events. One can ask what more
counsel would have learned at the pretrial identifications that
would have been relevant for truth determination at trial. When
the Court premises its constitutional rule on police conduct so subtle
as to defy description and subsequent disclosure it deals in pure
speculation. If police conduct is intentionally veiled, the police will
know about it, and I am unwilling to speculate that defense counsel
at trial will be unable to reconstruct the known circumstances of
the pretrial identification. And if the "unknown" influence on identi-
fications is "innocent," the Court's general premise evaporates and
the problem is simply that of the inherent shortcomings of eye-
witness testimony.
OCTOBER TERM, 1966.
frontations, it would not insist on the presence of counsel.

But if this is true, why does not the Court simply fashion
what it deems to be constitutionally acceptable pro-
cedures for the authorities to follow? Certainly the
Court is correct in suggesting that the new rule will be
wholly inapplicable where police departments themselves
have established suitable safeguards.
Third, courtroom identification may be barred, absent
counsel at a prior identification, regardless of the extent
of counsel's information concerning the circumstances of
the previous confrontation between witness and defend-
ant-apparently even if there were recordings or sound-
movies of the events as they occurred. But if the rule
is premised on the defendant's right to have his counsel
know, there seems little basis for not accepting other
means to inform. A disinterested observer, recordings,
photographs--any one of them would seem adequate to
furnish the basis for a meaningful cross-examination
of the eyewitness who identifies the defendant in the
courtroom.
I share the Court's view that the criminal trial, at the
very least, should aim at truthful factfinding, including
accurate eyewitness identifications. I doubt, however,
on the basis of our present information, that the tragic
mistakes which have occurred in criminal trials are as
much the product of improper police conduct as they are
the consequence of the difficulties inherent in eyewitness
testimony and in resolving evidentiary conflicts by court
or jury. I doubt that the Court's new rule will obviate
these difficulties, or that the situation will be measurably
improved by inserting defense counsel into the investi-
gative processes of police departments everywhere.
But, it may be asked, what possible state interest
militates against requiring the presence of defense coun-
sel at lineups? After all, the argument goes, he may
do some good, he may upgrade the quality of identifica-
tion evidence in state courts and he can scarcely do any
harm. Even if true, this is a feeble foundation for

fastening an ironclad constitutional rule upon state
criminal procedures. Absent some reliably established
constitutional violation, the processes by which the
States enforce their criminal laws are their own preroga-
tive. The States do have an interest in conducting
their own affairs, an interest which cannot be displaced
simply by saying that there are no valid arguments with
respect to the merits of a federal rule emanating from
this Court.
Beyond this, however, requiring counsel at pretrial
identifications as an invariable rule trenches on other
valid state interests. One of them is its concern with
the prompt and efficient enforcement of its criminal laws.
Identifications frequently take place after arrest but
before an indictment is returned or an information is
filed. The police may have arrested a suspect on prob-
able cause but may still have the wrong man. Both the
suspect and the State have every interest in a prompt
identification at that stage, the suspect in order to secure
his immediate release and the State because prompt and
early identification enhances accurate identification and
because it must know whether it is on the right investiga-
tive track. Unavoidably, however, the absolute rule re-
quiring the presence of counsel will cause significant
delay and it may very well result in no pretrial identifi-
cation at all. Counsel must be appointed and a time
arranged convenient for him and the witnesses. Mean-
while, it may be necessary to file charges against the
suspect who may then be released on bail, in the federal
system very often on his own recognizance, with neither
the State nor the defendant having the benefit of a
properly conducted identification procedure.
Nor do I think the witnesses themselves can be ig-
nored. They will now be required to be present at the
convenience of counsel rather than their own. Many
may be much less willing to participate if the identifica-
OCTOBER TERM, 1966.
Opinion of WHITE, J. 388 U.S.
tion stage is transformed into an adversary proceeding

not under the control of a judge. Others may fear for
their own safety if their identity is known at an early
date, especially when there is no way of knowing until
the lineup occurs whether or not the police really have
the right man.
Finally, I think the Court's new rule is vulnerable in
terms of its own unimpeachable purpose of increasing
the reliability of identification testimony.
Law enforcement officers have the obligation to con-
vict the guilty and to make sure they do not convict the
innocent. They must be dedicated to making the crimi-
nal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true
facts surrounding the commission of the crime.' To this
extent, our so-called adversary system is not adversary
at all; nor should it be. But defense counsel has no
comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth.
Our system assigns him a different mission. He must
41 would not have thought that the State's interest regarding its
sources of identification is any less than its interest in protecting
informants, especially those who may aid in identification but who
will not be used as witnesses. See McCray v. Illinois, 386 U. S. 300.
5 "The United States Attorney is the representative not of an
ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obliga-
tion to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to
govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecu-
tion is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.
As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of
the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or
innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-
indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he
is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to re-
frain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful con-
viction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just
one." Berger v. United States, 295 U. S. 78, 88. See also Mooney
v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103; Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U. S. 213; Alcorta
v. Texas, 355 U. S. 28; Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264; Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U. S. 83; Giles v. Maryland, 386 U. 5. 66; Miller
v. Pate, 386 U. S. 1.
be and is interested in preventing the conviction of the

innocent, but, absent a voluntary plea of guilty, we also
insist that he defend his client whether he is innocent or
guilty. The State has the obligation to present the evi-
dence. Defense counsel need present nothing, even if he
knows what the truth is. He need not furnish any wit-
nesses to the police, or reveal any confidences of his client,
or furnish any other information to help the prosecution's
case. If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or
make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive,
that will be his normal course.8 Our interest in not con-
6 One point of view about the role of the courtroom lawyer ap-
pears in Frank, Courts on Trial 82-83. "What is the role of the
lawyers in bringing the evidence before the trial court? As you
may learn by reading any one of a. dozen or more handbooks on
how to try a law-suit, an experienced lawyer uses all sorts of
stratagems to minimize the effect on the judge or jury of testimony
disadvantageous to his client, even when the lawyer has no doubt of
the accuracy and honesty of that testimony .... If such a witness
happens to be timid, frightened by the unfamiliarity of court-room
ways, the lawyer, in his cross-examination, plays on that weakness,
in order to confuse the witness and make it appear that he is con-
cealing significant facts. Longenecker, in his book Hints On The
Trial of a Law Suit (a book endorsed by the great Wigmore), in
writing of the 'truthful, honest, over-cautious' witness, tells how 'a
skilful advocate by a rapid cross-examination may ruin the testi-
mony of such a witness.' The author does not even hint any dis-
approval of that accomplishment. Longenecker's and other similar
books recommend that a lawyer try to prod an irritable but honest
'adverse' witness into displaying his undesirable characteristics in
their most unpleasant form, in order to discredit him with the judge
or jury. 'You may,' writes Harris, 'sometimes destroy the effect of
an adverse witness by making him appear more hostile than he
really is. You may make him exaggerate or unsay something and
say it again.' Taft says that a clever cross-examiner, dealing with
an honest but egotistic witness, will 'deftly tempt the witness to in-
dulge in his propensity for exaggeration, so as to make him "hang
himself." 'And thus,' adds Taft, 'it may happen that not only is
the value of his testimony lost, but the side which produces him
OCTOBER TERM, 1966.
victing the innocent permits counsel to put the State

to its proof, to put the State's -case in the worst possible
light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the
truth. Undoubtedly there are some limits which de-
fense counsel must observe" but more often than not,
defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness,
and impeach him if he can, even if he thinks the wit-
ness is telling the truth, just as he will attempt to de-
stroy a witness who he thinks is lying. In this respect,
as part of our modified adversary system and as part of
the duty imposed on the most honorable defense coun-
sel, we countenance or require conduct which in many
instances has little, if any, relation to the search for
truth.
I would not extend this system, at least as it presently
operates, to police investigations and would not require
counsel's presence at pretrial identification procedures.
Counsel's interest is in not having his client placed at the
scene of the crime, regardless of his whereabouts. Some
counsel may advise their clients to refuse to make any
suffers for seeking aid from such a source'-although, I would add,
that may be the only source of evidence of a fact on which the
decision will turn.
"'An intimidating manner in putting questions,' writes Wigmore,
'may so coerce or disconcert the witness that his answers do not
represent his actual knowledge on the subject. So also, questions
which in form or subject cause embarrassment, shame or anger in
the witness may unfairly lead him to such demeanor or utterances
that the impression produced by his statements does not do justice
to its real testimonial value.'
See the materials collected in c. 3 of Countr)man & Finman,
The Lawyer in Modern Society; Joint Committee on Continuing
Legal Education of American Law Institute and the American Bar
Association, The Problem of a Criminal Defense 1-46 (1961);
Stovall, Aspects of the Advocate's Dual Responsibility, 22 The
Alabama Lawyer 66; Gold, Split Loyalty: An Ethical Problem for
the Criminal Defense Lawyer, 14 Clev.-Mar. L. Rev. 65; Symposium
on Professional Ethics, 64 Mich. L. Rev. 1469-1498.
218 Opinion of FORTAS, J.
movements or to speak any words in a lineup or even

to appear in one. To that extent the impact on truth-
ful factfinding is quite obvious. Others will not only
observe what occurs and develop possibilities for later
cross-examination but will hover over witnesses and be-
gin their cross-examination then, menacing truthful fact-
finding as thoroughly as the Court fears the police now
do. Certainly there is an implicit invitation to counsel
to suggest rules for the lineup and to manage and pro-
duce it as best he can. I therefore doubt that the Court's
new rule, at least absent some clearly defined limits on
counsel's role, will measurably contribute to more reliable
pretrial identifications. My fears are that it will have
precisely the opposite result. It may well produce fewer
convictions, but that is hardly a proper measure of its
long-run acceptability. In my view, the State is entitled
to investigate and develop its case outside the presence
of defense counsel. This includes the right to have
private conversations with identification witnesses, just
as defense counsel may have his own consultations with
these and other witnesses without having the prosecutor
present.
Whether today's judgment would be an acceptable ex-
ercise of supervisory power over federal courts is an-
other question. But as a constitutional matter, the
judgment in this case is erroneous and although I concur
in Parts I and III of the Court's opinion I respectfully
register this dissent.
MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE

and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS join, concurring in part and
dissenting in part.
1. I agree with the Court that the exhibition of the
person of the accused at a lineup is not itself a viola-
tion of the privilege against self-incrimination. In
itself, it is no more subject to constitutional objection
OCTOBER TERM, 1966.
Opinion of FORTAS, J. 388 U. S.
than the exhibition of the person of the accused in the

courtroom for identification purposes. It is an inci-
dent of the State's power to arrest, and a reasonable
and justifiable aspect of the State's custody resulting
from arrest. It does not require that the accused take
affirmative, volitional action, but only that, having
been duly arrested he may be seen for identification
purposes. It is, however, a "critical stage" in the
prosecution, and I agree with the Court that the
opportunity to have counsel present must be made
available.
2. In my view, however, the accused may not be
compelled in a lineup to speak the words uttered by
the person who committed the crime. I am confident
that it could not be compelled in court. It cannot be
compelled in a lineup. It is more than passive, mute
assistance to the eyes of the victim or of witnesses. It
is the kind of volitional act-the kind of forced coopera-
tion by the accused-which is within the historical perim-
eter of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination.
Our history and tradition teach and command that
an accused may stand mute. The privilqge means
just that; not less than that. According to the Court,
an accused may be jailed-indefinitely-until he is
willing to say, for an identifying audience, whatever
was said in the course of the commission of the crime.
Presumably this would include, "Your money or your
life"-or perhaps, words of assault in a rape case. This
is intolerable under our constitutional system.
I completely agree that the accused must be advised
of and given the right to counsel before a lineup-and
I join in that part of the Court's opinion; but this is
an empty right unless we mean to insist upon the
accused's fundamental constitutional immunities. One
of these is that the accused may not be compelled to
speak. To compel him to speak would violate the priv-
218 Opinion of FORTAS, J.
ilege against self-incrimination, which is incorporated in

the Fifth Amendment.
This great privilege is not merely a shield for the
accused. It is also a prescription of technique designed
to guide the State's investigation. History teaches us
that self-accusation is an unreliable instrument of detec-
tion, apt to inculpate the innocent-but-weak and to
enable the guilty to escape. But this is not the end
of the story. The privilege historically goes to the
roots of democratic and religious principle. It prevents
the debasement of the citizen which would result from
compelling him to "accuse" himself before the power of
the state. The roots of the privilege are deeper than the
rack and the screw used to extort confessions. They go
to the nature of a free man and to his relationship to the
state.
An accused cannot be compelled to utter the words
spoken by the criminal in the course of the crime. I
thoroughly disagree with the Court's statement that
such compulsion does not violate the Fifth Amendment.
The Court relies upon Schmerber v. California, 384
U. S. 757 (1966), to support this. I dissented in
Schmerber, but if it were controlling here, I should, of
course, acknowledge its binding effect unless we were
prepared to overrule it. But Schmerber, which author-
ized the forced extraction of blood from the veins of
an unwilling human being, did not compel the person
actively to cooperate-to accuse himself by a volitional
act which differs only in degree from compelling him to
act out the crime, which, I assume, would be rebuffed
by the Court. It is the latter feature which places
the compelled utterance by the accused squarely within
the history and noble purpose of the Fifth Amend-
ment's commandment.
To permit Schmerber to apply in any respect beyond
its holding is, in my opinion, indefensible. To permit
OCTOBER TERM, 1966.
Opinion of FORTAS, J. 388 U. S.
its insidious doctrine to extend beyond the invasion of

the body, which it permits, to compulsion of the will of
a man, is to deny and defy a precious part of our his-
torical faith and to discard one of the most profoundly
cherished instruments by which we have established
the freedom and dignity of the individual. We should
not so alter the balance between the rights of the indi-
vidual and of the state, achieved over centuries of
conflict.
3. While the Court holds that the accused must be
advised of and given the right to counsel at the lineup,
it makes the privilege meaningless in this important
respect. Unless counsel has been waived or, being
present, has not objected to the accused's utterance of
words used in the course of committing the crime, to
compel such an utterance is constitutional error.*
Accordingly, while I join the Court in requiring vacat-
ing of the judgment below for a determination as to
whether the identification of respondent was based upon
factors independent of the lineup, I would do so not only
because of the failure to offer counsel before the lineup
but also because of the violation of respondent's Fifth
Amendment rights.
*While it is conceivable that legislation might provide a metic-

ulous lineup procedure which would satisfy constitutional require-
ments, I do not agree with the Court that this would "remove the
basis for regarding the [lineup] stage as 'critical.'"

United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OCTOBER TERM, 1966.

UNITED STATES v. WADE.

No. 334. Argued February 16, 1967.-Decided June 12, 1967.

(a) There is a great possibility of unfairness to the accused

Beatrice Rosenberg argued the cause for the United

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the

Opinion of the Court. 388 U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the con-

Opinion of the Court,. 388 U. S.

rejected the claim as "an extravagant extension of the

I Holt was decided before Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383,

218 Opinion of the Court.

physical characteristic, not to speak his guilt. We held

Opinion of the Court. 388 U. S.

to protect Wade's most basic right as a criminal de-

prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to

Opinion of the Court. 388 U. S.

218 Opinion of the Court.

Sixth Amendment-the right of the accused to a speedy

Opinion of the Court. 388 U.S.

trial through the ordinary processes of cross-examination

6 Borchard, Convicting the Innocent; Frank & Frank, Not Guilty;

218 Opinion of the Court.

tor has observed that "[t] he influence of improper sugges-

as is the case with secret interrogations, there is serious

[1963] Crim. L. Rev. 545, 546; Borchard, Convicting the Innocent

218 Opinion of the Court.

fluences may go undetected by a suspect, guilty or not,

side cannot be heard. See Rigney v. Hendrick, 355 F. 2d 710,

supra, n.7, at 99.

inability effectively to reconstruct at trial any unfairness

218 Opinion of the Court.

numerous instances of suggestive procedures, for example,

18 See People v. James, 218 Cal. App. 2d 166, 170-171, 32 Cal.

v. State, 236 Ark. 12, 364 S. W. 2d 676 (1963); People v. Thompson,

Gillespie v. State, 355 P. 2d 451, 454 (Okla. Cr. 1960).

fying witnesses elicited on cross-examination revealed

218 Opinion of the Court.

secrecy of the confrontation. We do not assume that

effective appeal from the judgment there rendered by the

211One commentator proposes a model statute providing not only

218 Opinion of the Court.

little doubt that for Wade the post-indictment lineup

witness should be required to do so separately and should be for-

basic assumptions upon which this Court has operated

prejudice to the suspect. In England the suspect must be allowed

218 Opinion of the Court.

Legislative or other regulations, such as those of local

30 Thirty years ago Wigmore suggested a "scientific method" of

to be excluded. We do not think this disposition can be

in an attempt to discover and reveal unfairness, while

witness knows the suspect, whether the witness is the suspect's

We doubt that the Court of Appeals applied the proper

the witness' in-court identification. Moreover, the State's inability

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and

THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins the opinion of the Court

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, concurring.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting in part and concurring

Fifteen days later, while Wade was still in custody, an