United States of America v. Randolph Queen
435 F.2d 66 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a pre-indictment lineup is satisfied by the presence of a 'substitute counsel' not formally appointed to the suspect. Additionally, a trial court's failure to disclose a pre-sentence investigation report does not violate due process if the defendant had an opportunity to confirm or deny the key information used for sentencing, such as a prior criminal record.
Facts:
- A cleaning establishment was robbed.
- An individual, the appellant, was identified as a suspect.
- Before being indicted, the appellant was placed in a police lineup.
- An attorney from the Legal Aid Agency was present at the lineup on behalf of each suspect, including the appellant, but was not formally appointed as his counsel.
- Two eyewitnesses to the robbery identified the appellant at the lineup.
- A third eyewitness, who saw the appellant before and during the robbery, did not attend the lineup but later identified the appellant at trial.
- During the trial, the appellant's record of two prior convictions was disclosed to him and his counsel.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant was convicted of robbery and assault with a deadly weapon in a trial court.
- During the trial, the court held a hearing to determine if the appellant's two prior convictions could be used for impeachment.
- The trial judge sentenced the appellant to 4 to 12 years in prison without furnishing him or his counsel with the pre-sentence investigation report, citing a general policy of non-disclosure.
- The appellant appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals, arguing constitutional violations regarding the lineup and the non-disclosure of the pre-sentence report.
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 the presence of a 'substitute counsel' from a legal aid agency, who is not formally appointed to represent a suspect, satisfy the constitutional requirement for counsel at a pre-indictment police lineup?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the presence of a 'substitute counsel' at a pre-indictment police lineup satisfies the constitutional requirement for counsel. The court found that the presence of an attorney from the Legal Aid Agency on behalf of each suspect, including the appellant, was sufficient to meet the constitutional standard set forth in United States v. Wade. The court also independently examined a picture of the lineup and found nothing suggestive or unfair. On the separate issue of the pre-sentence report, the court held there was no due process violation because the most critical element of the report—the appellant's prior convictions—had already been disclosed to the appellant and his counsel during trial, providing them with an opportunity to confirm, deny, or explain the record. This distinguishes the case from situations where a sentence is based on materially false information unknown to the defendant.
Analysis:
This decision provides a practical clarification of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at pre-indictment lineups as established by United States v. Wade. By deeming 'substitute counsel' constitutionally adequate, the court allows for law enforcement efficiency without sacrificing the core purpose of ensuring fairness in identification procedures. The ruling also narrows the scope for due process challenges regarding the non-disclosure of pre-sentence reports, shifting the focus from procedural access to the report itself to the substantive opportunity for the defendant to contest the key facts influencing the sentence. This prioritizes factual accuracy in sentencing over a defendant's absolute right to view the entire report.
Unlock the full brief for United States of America v. Randolph Queen