## Facts

- A 16-year-old juvenile, Julio Holley, was accused of conduct that would constitute rape if committed by an adult.
- Police arranged a stationhouse lineup in which the adult victim identified Holley as her assailant.
- No attorney was present for Holley at the lineup.
- The State filed a delinquency petition in Rhode Island Family Court relying primarily on the victim’s identification testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a lineup applies in a juvenile delinquency proceeding so that absence of counsel requires exclusion of lineup identification.
2. Whether the lineup counsel rules of *United States v. Wade* and *Gilbert v. California* apply retroactively to lineups conducted before those decisions.
3. Whether the victim’s in-court identification was admissible as independently based on her observations during the assault, rather than tainted by the lineup.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the delinquency adjudication.
- The court held that juvenile delinquency proceedings implicate fundamental constitutional protections and that a lineup is a “critical stage” at which the right to counsel generally applies.
- The court held that *Wade* and *Gilbert* do not apply retroactively; for pre-*Wade* lineups, admissibility turns on due process rather than an automatic exclusion for lack of counsel.
- Applying the pre-*Wade* due-process standard, the court found no showing that the lineup was so unnecessarily suggestive as to create a substantial risk of mistaken identification.
- The court held the victim’s in-court identification was admissible because it had an independent basis in her observations during the crime.

## Legal Principles

- Juvenile delinquency proceedings, though labeled civil, can threaten liberty in a manner that requires core constitutional protections, including counsel at critical stages.
- A lineup is a “critical stage” of prosecution because it can decisively shape the outcome and must be safeguarded by counsel when the governing right-to-counsel rule applies.
- *Wade*/*Gilbert* lineup counsel requirements are not retroactive; pre-*Wade* identifications are tested under due process for whether the procedure was unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable misidentification.
- An in-court identification may be admitted if the prosecution shows by clear and convincing evidence that it rests on an independent source apart from any defective pretrial confrontation.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the juvenile delinquency adjudication, holding that while the right to counsel generally extends to juvenile lineups as a critical stage, *Wade* and *Gilbert* were not retroactive; the pre-*Wade* lineup was reviewed for due process and the victim’s in-court identification was admitted as independently based on her observations during the assault.


In re Holley, 107 R.I. 615, 268 A.2d 723 (R.I. 1970)