Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Simmons v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1968 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal Procedurephotographic identificationdue processmisidentificationsuggestive proceduresJencks Act18 U.S.C. § 3500suppression hearing

Facts

The day after the robbery, FBI agents obtained snapshots of Andrews and Simmons and showed them separately to five bank employees who had witnessed the robbery; each identified Simmons, and later in court all five again identified him. Garrett moved before trial to suppress a suitcase seized from Mrs. Mahon's basement, and to establish standing he testified that the suitcase was similar to one he had owned and that clothing inside it belonged to him. The district court denied suppression and later admitted Garrett's suppression-hearing testimony against him at trial. The district court also denied defense requests under 18 U.S.C. § 3500 for production of the photographs shown to eyewitnesses before trial.

Issue

Whether Simmons' pretrial identification by photographs was so impermissibly suggestive as to violate due process or require reversal; whether the photographs had to be produced under the Jencks Act or otherwise at trial; and whether Garrett's testimony given to establish standing on his Fourth Amendment suppression motion could be admitted against him at trial on the issue of guilt.

Rule

Convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Photographs are producible under 18 U.S.C. § 3500 only if they are part of a witness's written statement adopted or approved by the witness. When a defendant testifies in support of a motion to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, that testimony may not thereafter be admitted against him at trial on the issue of guilt unless he makes no objection.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After a daytime jewelry-store robbery in Phoenix, detectives showed the lone cashier a single color photograph of Devin Cole three weeks later and said, "We already know he did it." The cashier had seen the robber for only a few seconds while crouching behind the counter, and later identified Cole in court.

If Cole challenges the conviction on due process grounds based on the pretrial photo procedure, which is the best answer?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a conviction following pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside only if the photographic procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Here, several danger signs identified by the Court are present: only one photo was shown, police expressly indicated they had other evidence against the suspect, the witness had only a brief opportunity to observe, and the showing occurred weeks later. Under the totality of the circumstances, this is the strongest basis for reversal.