Decision Stovall v. Denno

1 decision

1.1 majority opinion
1.2 douglas dissent in part
1.3 fortas dissent
1.4 white s concurrence in part
1.5 black s dissent

decision
majority opinion

stovall decided on same day united states v. wade , gilbert v. california, 2 cases dealing sixth amendment right counsel in pretrial stages. court observed rule of wade, absence of counsel @ post-indictment lineup held violation of sixth amendment, dictate finding of sixth amendment violation in present case. court, however, held rule of wade should not applied retroactively. court noted police departments had relied on sixth amendment jurisprudence before wade, , absence of counsel @ identification did not jeopardize stovall s right fair trial enough justify retroactive application.

even without application of wade rule, stovall prevail if show due process rights under fourteenth amendment violated. due process test described court stovall prevail if identification procedure unnecessarily suggestive , conducive irreparable mistaken identification denied due process of law. court held identification procedure, though suggestive, necessary because of mrs. behrendt s injured state , affirmed stovall s conviction.

douglas dissent in part

justice douglas dissented court s refusal retroactively apply rule of wade find sixth amendment violation.

fortas dissent

justice fortas asserted identification of stovall violation of due process rights , case should reversed , remanded. fortas not have reached issue of retroactive application of wade.

white s concurrence in part

justice white, joined justices harlan , stewart, wrote separately emphasize there no sixth amendment violation.

black s dissent

justice black dissented court s refusal retroactively apply wade. black dissented court s holding defendant can mount due process challenge conviction in absence of violation of specific amendment. black reverse , remand determine if admission of lineup without counsel harmless error.