Foster v. California
394 U.S. 440 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Pretrial identification procedures that, under the totality of the circumstances, are so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- A Western Union office was robbed by two men.
- Joseph David, the office manager, was the only eyewitness besides the robbers themselves.
- Police arranged a three-man lineup for David. The suspect, Foster, was nearly six feet tall, while the other two men were five feet five or six inches.
- Foster wore a leather jacket similar to one the robber had worn.
- Following this lineup, David could not positively identify Foster but said he 'thought' it was the man.
- Police then brought Foster into an office for a one-on-one confrontation with David, after which David was still not sure.
- About a week later, police arranged a second, five-man lineup. Foster was the only person from the first lineup who was also in the second.
- After this second lineup, David stated he was 'convinced' Foster was the robber.
Procedural Posture:
- Foster was charged by information with armed robbery in a California state trial court.
- Following a joint trial with a co-defendant, Foster was convicted.
- Foster (as appellant) appealed to the California District Court of Appeal, which affirmed the conviction.
- Foster (as appellant) petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review, but the petition was denied.
- Foster (as petitioner) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a pretrial police identification procedure, judged by the totality of the circumstances, that is so unnecessarily suggestive that it makes misidentification almost inevitable, violate the Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Fortas
Yes. The pretrial identification procedures violated the Due Process Clause. Judged by the 'totality of the circumstances,' the police conduct was so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification as to be a denial of due process of law. The first lineup was suggestive due to the stark height difference and Foster's clothing. When that failed, the police used a 'widely condemned' one-on-one confrontation. The final lineup was fatally flawed because Foster was the only person who had also appeared in the first lineup. The cumulative effect of these procedures made it 'all but inevitable' that the witness would identify Foster, effectively communicating to the witness, 'This is the man,' which undermined the reliability of the identification.
Dissenting - Justice Black
No. The procedures did not violate the Due Process Clause, and the reliability of the eyewitness identification was a matter for the jury to decide. The majority usurps the jury's role as the sole weigher of facts and credibility. The Constitution guarantees a trial by jury, which must be allowed to hear eyewitnesses and decide for itself whether an identification is accurate. The Court's 'totality of the circumstances' test is a vague, subjective standard that allows judges to invalidate evidence based on their own notions of 'unfairness,' rather than on a specific constitutional prohibition. The jury heard the testimony, was aware of the identification circumstances, and its verdict should be respected, especially given the corroborating testimony from an accomplice and evidence of a prior, similar robbery.
Analysis:
This case is significant for providing a clear, albeit extreme, example of an identification procedure that violates the Due Process standard established in Stovall v. Denno. While Stovall set the 'totality of the circumstances' test, Foster demonstrates its application, showing that the cumulative effect of several suggestive actions can render an identification unconstitutional. This decision serves as a benchmark for lower courts in evaluating challenges to eyewitness identifications, reinforcing that the process must not be so suggestive as to create a 'very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.' It underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinizing pretrial procedures to safeguard against wrongful convictions based on unreliable evidence.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Foster v. California (1969)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"