Case law · Highest court · Federal

Neil v. Biggers

Decided
December 6, 1972
Docket
71-586
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Federal

Cited 7,056 timesDisapproved (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: disapproved (not yet verified) · Gibbs v. State

What later courts said

  • holding that identification evidence, including voice identification, was properly admitted based on determination that “totality of the circumstances” indicate that identification was reliable, even though procedure was suggestive — State v. Clausell (1990)
  • holding that it is this “likelihood of misidentification which violates a defendant’s right to due process of law” — United States v. Stamper (2004)
  • holding that a “[significant time lapse] would not be dispositive when weighed against other factors of reliability” — Dorcil v. Warden, Attica Correctional Facility (2023)

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 Powell delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 1965, after a jury trial in a Tennessee court, respondent was convicted of rape and was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. The State’s evidence consisted in part of testimony concerning a station-house identification of respondent by the victim. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed. Biggers v. State, 219 Tenn. 553, 411 S. W. 2d 696 (1967). On certiorari, the judgment of the Tennessee Supreme Court was affirmed by an equally divided Court. Biggers v. Tennessee, 390 U. S. 404 (1968) (Marshall, J., not participating). Respondent then brought a federal habeas corpus action raising several claims. In reply, [*190] petitioner contended that the claims were barred by 28 U. S. C. § 2244(c), which provides in pertinent part:

“In a habeas corpus proceeding brought in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a prior judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States on an appeal or review by a writ of certiorari at the instance of the prisoner of the decision of such State court, shall be conclusive as to all issues of fact or law with respect to an asserted denial of a Federal right which constitutes ground for discharge in a habeas corpus proceeding, actually adjudicated by the Supreme Court therein .. . ” The District Court held that the claims were not barred and, after a hearing, held in an unreported opinion that the station-house identification procedure was so suggestive as to violate due process. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 448 F. 2d 91 (1971). We granted certiorari to decide whether an affirmance by an equally divided Court is an actual adjudication barring subsequent consideration on habeas corpus, and, if not, whether the identification procedure violated due process. 405 U. S. 954 (1972).

Statutes cited

Cite this

Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972)

Read the full opinion

Free account needed

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.