To: Attorney, Patrick Finn
From: Paralegal, Misty Cornelius
Re: John Smith, suspect in Burglary of U.S. Post Office at 100 Circle Street, Lynchburg,
Virginia.
Date: October 15, 2021
Question Presented
Was Mr. Smith’s Sixth Amendment rights violated when he was not advised of his right to
counsel for the lineup.
Brief Answer
Yes. Based on the legal rule that a Defendant has the legal right to an attorney at a lineup
conducted after he has been charged with the crime. The lineup is a “critical” stage and helps
police prove their case against the Defendant.
Facts
On, October 20, 2020, Mr. Smith was arrested for the burglary of the U.S. Post Office at 100
Circle Street. The incident occurred at approximately 2:45am on October 19, 2020. Mr. Smith
stated that he left O’Malley’s Pub where he is bartender at 2:30am. O’Malley’s is located at 123
Circle Street. The police report states that there is an eyewitness who observed a white male
approximately 180 lbs. and about 5’10” with brown hair and a mustache running out of the post
office after the alarm sounded at 2:45am. The witness states that the suspect was wearing a blue
jacket, blue jeans and a black hat. The witness also stated that the suspect was carrying several
pieces of mail. While at work on October 20, 2020, the Defendant was questioned by police. He
told police that he had left work at 2:30 the previous night. He said he arrived at his home at 145
Prince Street (3 blocks away) at approximately 3:00am and went to bed. He denied any
involvement in the break in and refused to answer any more of the officer’s questions. After
obtaining a search warrant, police found several pieces of stolen mail in the Defendant’s
apartment. The Defendant was then arrested and brought into the police station where he was
subjected to a lineup without counsel present. Mr. Smith was never advised to his right to an
attorney during the lineup. As a result of the lineup, the Defendant was identified by the
eyewitness as the subject she observed running out of the post office at the time of the burglary.
Discussion
The issue in question is whether or not Mr. Smith’s Sixth Amendment right was violated when he
was subjected to a lineup without being advised of his right to have counsel present. Under
United States v Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) it was decided that post-indictment lineup was a
critical stage of the proceedings, so Wade was entitled to have his attorney present. It was also
held that Wade’s Sixth Amendment right was violated because the line-up was conducted without
notice and in the absence of his attorney. This caused the question of its admissibility in his trial.
In this instance, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Wade was
identified by witnesses on direct examination. Pre-trial identification was admissible during this
trial and Wade was found guilty. Later, The Supreme Court of the United States remanded the
action to the court of appeals and a new judgment was entered and Wade’s conviction was
overturned until a new hearing could decide whether the in-court distinguishing pieces of
proof had autonomous roots. The post-indictment lineup was a critical stage of the proceedings,
so Wade was entitled to have his attorney present for it. Based on the record, the
Court may not decide whether the distinguishing pieces of proof ought to be avoided. Proof as to
whether the in-court recognizable pieces of proof were based on individual perceptions, or the
lineup had to be presented. Under Kirby v Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972), “a person's Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel attaches only at or after the time that adversary judicial
proceedings have been initiated against him. This is not to say that a defendant in a criminal case
has a constitutional right to counsel only at the trial itself. The right attaches at the time of
arraignment, and it exists also at the time of a preliminary hearing.”
Conclusion
It is my conclusion that Mr. Smith’s Sixth Amendment right to have counsel present at the lineup
was violated and the evidence gathered from the lineup should be found inadmissible in court
based on the rulings from the United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) and Kirby v. Illinois,
406 U.S. 682 (1972). Mr. Smith should have been given his right to an attorney once he was
charged with the crime.
United States v. Wade - 388 U.S. 218, 87 S. ct. 1926 (1967). Community. (2021). Retrieved
October 16, 2021, from https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-united-
states-v-wade.
Kirby v. Illinois - 406 U.S. 682, 92 S. ct. 1877 (1972). Community. (2021). Retrieved October 16,
2021, from https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-kirby-v-illinois.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
