Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Stovall v. Denno

Supreme Court of the United States · 1967 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureIdentificationRetroactivityDue ProcessRight to Counselretroactivitypretrial identificationshowup

Facts

After Dr. Behrendt was fatally stabbed and Mrs. Behrendt was seriously wounded, police traced keys found at the scene to petitioner and arrested him the next afternoon. The day after Mrs. Behrendt underwent major surgery, police brought petitioner to her hospital room without giving him time to retain counsel; he was handcuffed to a police officer, was the only Negro in the room, and was identified by Mrs. Behrendt after an officer asked whether he was the man and directed him to speak for voice identification. At trial, both Mrs. Behrendt and the officers testified about the hospital identification, and Mrs. Behrendt also identified petitioner in court. Petitioner challenged admission of this identification evidence on habeas corpus.

Issue

Whether the exclusionary rules announced in United States v. Wade and Gilbert v. California apply retroactively to pretrial identifications conducted before those decisions. If not, whether this particular hospital-room confrontation was so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that it denied petitioner due process of law.

Rule

The Wade and Gilbert rules requiring exclusion of identification evidence tainted by post-indictment confrontations conducted without counsel apply only to those cases and to future cases involving confrontations after the date of those decisions. Independently, a confrontation violates due process only if, under the totality of the circumstances, it was so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification as to deny due process of law.

🔒

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.

In 1964, police in Cleveland conducted a station-house lineup of Omar Price without notifying or providing counsel. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in March 1967, and in July 1967 he sought a new trial arguing that the lineup evidence had to be excluded under newly announced right-to-counsel decisions governing pretrial identifications.

How should a court rule on Omar's argument?

Explanation. The majority held that the exclusionary rules requiring counsel at identification confrontations are prospective only: they apply to the announcing cases and to future confrontations after the date of decision. They do not apply retroactively to earlier confrontations, even though the defendant may still be seeking postconviction relief. Omar may still attempt a separate due process challenge, but he is not entitled to automatic exclusion under the new counsel rule.