Stovall v. Denno
- Decided
- June 12, 1967
- Docket
- 254
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 6,066 timesAbrogated on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: abrogated on other grounds, overruled on other grounds, abrogated, overruled, overruled in part, overruled in part on other grounds, abrogated in part on other grounds, disapproved on other grounds, abrogated in part (not yet verified) · Howard v. Dzurenda
What later courts said
- concluding that whether a suggestive identification “resulted in such unfairness that it infringed [the defendant’s] right to due process of law” is “open to all persons to allege and prove” — Perry v. New Hampshire (2012)
- concluding that whether a suggestive identification “resulted in such unfairness that it infringed [the defend- ant’s] right to due process of law” is “open to all persons to allege and prove” — Perry v. New Hampshire (2012)
- recognizing that “[t]he practice of showing suspects singly to persons for the purpose of identification, and not as part of a line-up, has been widely condemned” — United States v. Craig William Brownlee (2006)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court.
This federal habeas corpus proceeding attacks collaterally a state criminal conviction for the same alleged constitutional errors in the admission of allegedly tainted identification evidence that were before us on direct review of the convictions involved in United States v. Wade, ante, p. 218, and Gilbert v. California, ante, p. 263. This case therefore provides a vehicle for deciding the extent to which the rules announced in Wade and Gilbert— requiring the exclusion of identification evidence which is tainted by exhibiting the accused to identifying witnesses before trial in the absence of his counsel — are to be applied retroactively. See Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618; Tehan v. Shott, 382 U. S. 406; Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719.[1] A further question is whether in any event, on the facts of the particular con [*295] frontation involved in this case, petitioner was denied due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U. S. 737.
Dr. Paul Behrendt was stabbed to death in the kitchen of his home in Garden City, Long Island, about midnight August 23, 1961. Dr. Behrendt’s wife, also a physician, had followed her husband to the kitchen and jumped at the assailant. He knocked her to the floor and stabbed her 11 times. The police found a shirt on the kitchen floor and keys in a pocket which they traced to petitioner. They arrested him on the afternoon of August 24. An arraignment was promptly held but was postponed until petitioner could retain counsel.
Cite this
Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.