## Facts

- The complainant reported that two men robbed him from behind; one pointed a gun at his face while the other took \$26 and two two-way radios.
- The complainant immediately described both men and the gun to police.
- Soon after, an officer saw a man matching the gunman’s description; after a foot chase, the man was caught and identified as Jonathan D. Hickman.
- During the chase, officers saw Hickman throw an object; police recovered a chrome handgun matching the complainant’s description.
- When arrested, Hickman possessed one of the stolen two-way radios.
- About ten minutes after the robbery, police brought the complainant to where Hickman was detained in a police car and asked if he was involved.
- The complainant immediately identified Hickman as the person who held the gun.
- Hickman moved to suppress the showup identification because counsel was not present; the trial court denied the motion, and Hickman was convicted of armed robbery, conspiracy, and felony-firearm.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to an on-the-scene corporeal showup conducted shortly after detention but before initiation of adversarial judicial criminal proceedings.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the right to counsel for corporeal identification procedures attaches only at or after initiation of adversarial judicial criminal proceedings.
- Because the showup occurred pre-charge and minutes after the crime, no right to counsel had attached, and suppression was not required on that ground.
- The court overruled prior Michigan precedent to the extent it required counsel at pre-adversarial corporeal identifications.
- The court noted that the identification was also not unduly suggestive under due process standards.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is triggered by the initiation of adversarial judicial criminal proceedings (e.g., formal charge, arraignment, indictment), not by mere detention or investigation.
- A suspect has no Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a pre-charge on-the-scene showup; admissibility remains subject to due process limits on unnecessarily suggestive identifications.
- State rules extending a right to counsel beyond the federal attachment point were rejected to the extent they conflicted with the attachment standard tied to adversarial proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court held that a prompt, pre-charge on-the-scene showup does not require counsel because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has not yet attached; earlier state precedent requiring counsel at such pre-adversarial identifications was overruled, leaving due process as the principal basis for challenging suggestive showups.


People v. Hickman, 470 Mich. 602, 684 N.W.2d 267 (Mich. 2004)