United States v. Ash case brief summary
413 U.S. 300 (1973)
Petitioner government sought review of a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which held that respondent accused had a right to have counsel present whenever the government conducted a post-indictment photographic display containing the picture of respondent for the purpose of allowing a witness to attempt an identification of respondent.
CASE FACTS
Prior to trial of respondent accused, petitioner government used a photographic display to determine whether witnesses would be able to make in-court identifications of respondent. Some witnesses selected his picture, but one was unable to make any selection; at trial some witnesses identified respondent. Respondent was convicted. The appellate court held that admitting the photographs into evidence constituted the introduction of a post-indictment identification.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The Court reversed the decision below and held that the Sixth Amendment did not grant the right to counsel at photographic displays conducted by petitioner government for the purpose of allowing a witness to attempt an identification of respondent accused.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
413 U.S. 300 (1973)
Petitioner government sought review of a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which held that respondent accused had a right to have counsel present whenever the government conducted a post-indictment photographic display containing the picture of respondent for the purpose of allowing a witness to attempt an identification of respondent.
CASE FACTS
Prior to trial of respondent accused, petitioner government used a photographic display to determine whether witnesses would be able to make in-court identifications of respondent. Some witnesses selected his picture, but one was unable to make any selection; at trial some witnesses identified respondent. Respondent was convicted. The appellate court held that admitting the photographs into evidence constituted the introduction of a post-indictment identification.
DISCUSSION
- The Court reversed and held that that it applied a historical interpretation of the right to counsel and had expanded the guarantee only when new contexts appeared presenting the same dangers that gave birth to the right.
- The Court held that even if it were willing to view the counsel guarantee in broad terms as a generalized protection of the adversary process, it would be unwilling to go so far as to extend the right to a portion of petitioner's trial-preparation interviews with witnesses.
- The Court held that U.S. Constitutional Amendment VI did not grant the right to counsel at photographic displays conducted by respondent for the purpose of allowing a witness to attempt an identification of the offender.
CONCLUSION
The Court reversed the decision below and held that the Sixth Amendment did not grant the right to counsel at photographic displays conducted by petitioner government for the purpose of allowing a witness to attempt an identification of respondent accused.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment