Stovall v. Denno
388 U.S. 293 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pretrial identification procedure violates the Due Process Clause only if, based on the totality of the circumstances, it is so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification. The right to counsel at pretrial identification lineups established in United States v. Wade does not apply retroactively.
Facts:
- On August 23, 1961, Dr. Paul Behrendt was stabbed to death in his home, and his wife, Mrs. Behrendt, was stabbed 11 times.
- Police found keys at the scene that they traced to the petitioner, Stovall.
- Stovall was arrested on the afternoon of August 24.
- Mrs. Behrendt was hospitalized and underwent major, life-saving surgery.
- On August 25, police brought Stovall to Mrs. Behrendt's hospital room for an identification before he could retain counsel.
- Stovall was handcuffed to a police officer and was the only Black person in the room.
- After an officer asked if Stovall 'was the man' and had him speak, Mrs. Behrendt identified Stovall as her attacker.
Procedural Posture:
- Stovall was convicted of murder in a New York state court and sentenced to death.
- The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, affirmed the conviction.
- Stovall filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which was dismissed.
- Stovall appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- An initial panel of the Second Circuit voted to reverse the dismissal.
- The Second Circuit then heard the case en banc, vacated the panel's decision, and affirmed the District Court's dismissal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 identification procedure violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if, based on the totality of the circumstances, it is so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
No, the pretrial identification procedure does not violate the Due Process Clause because a claimed violation depends on the totality of the circumstances, and this specific confrontation was imperative. The Court first held that the new rules from United States v. Wade and Gilbert v. California, which require counsel at post-indictment lineups, would not be applied retroactively due to law enforcement's justified reliance on old standards and the disruptive effect on the administration of justice. The Court then addressed the due process claim, acknowledging that showing a suspect singly ('showups') is a widely condemned practice. However, the Court found the procedure here was justified because Mrs. Behrendt was the sole witness, her life was in danger, and she could not attend a formal lineup. Given the need for immediate action and the fact she was the only person who could potentially exonerate Stovall, the hospital showup was the 'only feasible procedure' and therefore not unnecessarily suggestive.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
Yes, this procedure should be found unconstitutional, but on different grounds. The new constitutional rules from Wade and Gilbert regarding the right to counsel should be applied retroactively to Stovall and all others convicted using such evidence; failing to do so perpetrates a 'rank discrimination.' Furthermore, the majority's 'totality of the circumstances' due process test is illegitimate, as it substitutes the Court's subjective notions of fairness for the actual text of the Constitution, turning the Court into a 'day-to-day Constitution-maker.' The proper course would be to apply the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, find it was violated, and remand the case to determine if the admission of the identification was harmless error.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the 'totality of the circumstances' test as the framework for evaluating due process challenges to pretrial identification procedures. It created a separate and independent ground for challenging identifications, distinct from the Sixth Amendment right to counsel established in Wade. This due process analysis applies even in situations where the right to counsel has not attached, such as pre-indictment identifications. The ruling demonstrates that even a highly suggestive procedure can be constitutionally permissible if it is deemed necessary and imperative under the specific facts of the case.
Unlock the full brief for Stovall v. Denno