Facts
- A bank in Eustace, Texas, was robbed by an armed man who wore small strips of tape on each side of his face and directed employees to put money in a bag while an accomplice waited outside.
- Billy Joe Wade was indicted in federal court for bank robbery and conspiracy; he was arrested and later appointed counsel.
- After counsel was appointed and without notifying or securing the presence of Wade’s attorney, an FBI agent arranged a lineup including Wade and several other prisoners.
- Lineup participants wore tape on their faces and were required to speak words used during the robbery.
- Two bank employees identified Wade at the lineup and later identified him again at trial; the lineup identification was elicited during cross-examination.
Issues
- Whether compelling Wade to appear in a lineup, wear tape, and speak certain words violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- Whether a post-indictment lineup is a Sixth Amendment “critical stage” requiring the assistance of counsel.
- If the lineup violated the Sixth Amendment, whether in-court identifications must be excluded automatically or may be admitted upon proof of an independent source.
Decision
- The Supreme Court held there was no Fifth Amendment violation because the lineup required physical/identifying displays rather than compelled testimonial evidence.
- The Court held the post-indictment lineup was a “critical stage” at which Wade had a Sixth Amendment right to counsel; conducting it without notice to counsel violated that right.
- The Court rejected automatic exclusion of the witnesses’ in-court identifications.
- The Court vacated the judgment ordering blanket exclusion and remanded for a determination whether the in-court identifications were based on an independent origin, shown by clear and convincing evidence.
Legal Principles
- The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects against compelled testimonial or communicative evidence, not compelled exhibition of physical characteristics such as appearance or voice for identification.
- After indictment, a lineup is a “critical stage” of the prosecution because it is a pretrial confrontation with substantial risk of unfairness and may significantly affect the trial’s outcome; counsel’s presence is required to detect and later challenge suggestive procedures.
- When an uncounseled post-indictment lineup violates the Sixth Amendment, an in-court identification is admissible only if the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has an independent origin untainted by the unlawful lineup.
Conclusion
The Court required counsel at post-indictment lineups, treated compelled lineup participation as non-testimonial for Fifth Amendment purposes, and permitted in-court identifications only when the prosecution proves they rest on an independent, untainted source.