United States v. Wade - Case Study Example

?United s v. Wade A bank robbery on September 21, 1964 in Eustace, Texas led to the arrest of Billy Joe Wade and two others. As per the Miranda Rights of the accused, counsel was duly appointed to Wade in order to represent his legal interests. Two weeks after his arrest, Wade was placed in a line up with other similar looking men where the two employees who were present during the robbery positively identified Wade as one of the perpetrators. The witness identification procedure was undertaken by the FBI without considering the need of the accused to have legal counsel present. During the trial, Wade's legal counsel tried to get an acquittal for their client based upon their belief that the Fifth Amendment Rights of their client was violated as the line up was done without any legal counsel present to advise the accused of his rights. The courts denied the motion, resulting in the conviction of Wade in the end (n.d., “United States v. Wade). This led the defense to file a motion before the Supreme Court in order to request that they resolve the issue of allowing courtroom identifications of an accused to be excluded from evidence since the events surrounding the identification process was done without the presence of counsel. The events before the trial at the post indictment line up was therefore illegally conducted and was violation of his client's Fifth Amendment Rights (n.d., “United States v. Wade”). They requested that the Supreme Court overturn the decision of the lower court in the process. The Supreme Court however, did not find any reason to dismiss the case against Wade. It was the opinion of the court that the lack of counsel at the line up proceedings could not be seen as a violation of the accused Fifth Amendment Right against self incrimination. However, the court did agree that there was a potential to violate the Sixth Amendment Rights of the accused since legal counsel was not present during certain instances leading up to the trial of the accused. The lack of counsel at the line up left the accused vulnerable to prejudice. Therefore it was important for the accused to have counsel present during critical points of his pretrial proceedings. However, in the case of The United States v. Wade, there was no reason to over turn the decision of the court. That is, provided that the prosecution would be able to support the pretrial line up identification the accused with a solid and valid court identification of the accused as well (n.d., “The United State v. Wade”). Therefore, it was the opinion of the court that the Fifth Amendment Right to self incrimination was not violated in this case as the line up identification did not show that there was any testimonial or communicative evidence that needed to be suppressed. On the other hand, the Sixth Amendment Right to counsel was violated in the pretrial proceedings since the accused had a right to legal representation during critical stages of the pretrial proceedings, specially during the identification stages. Proper witness identification can easily be influenced during an investigation due to the nervousness and trauma that the witness had to endure during the incident. Therefore their memory recall of the perpetrators and the events as it unfolded may have a cloud of doubt about it. That is why the police rely on certain variables in order to ensure that the eyewitness accounts are as accurate and court admissible as possible. The key factors relating to the accuracy of witness identification, that can easily offset the suggestiveness and bias of show ups include (Moses, “Misidentification: the Caprices of Eye Witness Testimony in Criminal Cases”): “(1) Perception; (2) Memory; (3) Communication; and (4) Candor. “ However, these traits are not easily acquired by people and therefore affects the way that a witness gives an account of the things that happened during the incident, thereby making the witness prone to suggestive questioning. Let us remember that perception is created by the events as the witness wants to remember them. It is molded by expectation. Memory on the other hand is influenced by observer's conditioning hence making the witness prone to psychological manipulation. Communication could possibly also be distorted during cross examination due to the method by which a witness remembers and describes the events as they unfolded. While candor on the other hand can uncover the uncertainty of witness accounts during the recollection of proceedings that can be revealed during cross examinations (Moses, “Misidentification: the Caprices of Eye Witness Testimony in Criminal Cases”). In the event that the accused must come under suspect identification procedures, it is important to note that legal counsel is not required to be present at every instance. Legal counsel must only be present during in-person identification such as the case of police line-ups. Otherwise, identification using photo arrays and and the like do not require counsel to be present (“Eyewitness Identification Model Policy Final Draft”). One type of witness identification is the Show Up. This is an identification proceeding that is implemented when the victim is caught within an emergency situation or near death. This must be conducted in a non-suggestive manner and cannot be conducted from within a police vehicle, holding cell, or when dressed in jail clothing. From the identification of the witness, the suspect may either be brought to jail for detention or, if he is not identified by the victim, he may be released from police custody (n.d., “Eyewitness Identification Model Policy Final Draft”). As previously mentioned, no counsel is required during these proceedings. A police officer may also arrange for a photo array in order to identify a suspect. The presence of legal counsel is not necessary in this instance since the witness will be asked to identify the suspect using a series of photos of like featured men. The Line Up is the most common witness identification proceeding and is the only one that requires counsel to be present in order to give him a chance to observe the accusers of his client and use his observations of the client during cross examination. He is allowed to : “... make reasonable suggestions regarding the composition of the line-up and the manner in which it is to be conducted. Any suggestions made by the suspect's attorney should be included as part of the line-up report.” (n.d., “Eyewitness Identification Model Policy Final Draft”). The accused may only have contact with his counsel before the line up and the lawyer for the accused is not allowed to have access to the name and address of the witness he is observing. In relation to The United States v. Wade, the policy regarding suspect identification is quite clear. Since he was not identified through a photo array or Shop Up, his Sixth Amendment Rights as an accused required him to have legal counsel present during the identification and he also had the right to consult with his counsel before the procedure took place so that he could have had the process and its outcome clearly explained to him. Sources n.a. (n.d.) “Eyewitness identification model policy draft paper”. docs.google.com. docs.google.com. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/viewer? a=v&q=cache:I7b2RzAPOQkJ:dps.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/EYEWITNESS %2520IDENTIFICATION%2520Model%2520Policy%2520Draft %2520final.pdf+What+are+three+types+of+suspect+identifications, +and+what+right+to+counsel+does+a+participant+have+at+each? &hl=en&pid=bl&srcid= ADGEESjFOFDOfqdazSNOPiAZSu8vimWcgjxvI6tXQMMYAlgwGQ- PRVBoqYVcfz0tS91QZe52OoLZhQTVajpRFZr9P1hmgsnVyOQEnRu_9 sBThDtOSW0CX3B-fxkUVn- sPByJmjd1mk4y&sig=AHIEtbQ3yM53kWt68MUTRr0g0389xDhVyQ n.a. (n.d.). “United States v. wade”. Bloomberg Law. CaseBriefs. Retrieved from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed- to-saltzburg/identifying-suspects/united-states-v-wade-3/2/ Ray, M. (2001). “Misidentification: The caprices of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases.” criminaldefense. Retrieved from http://criminaldefense.homestead.com/eyewitnessmisidentification.html Read More