Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
60. Was the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel violated?
The defendant argues that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when he was denied counsel at two critical stages of the proceeding: his initial appearance in court before the magistrate judge and the lineup identification.
A defendant was indicted and arrested for bank robbery. The defendant had an initial appearance before a magistrate judge in which he was notified of the charges and told that counsel would be appointed for him the next day. The police then required the defendant to participate with other prisoners in a lineup in which each person had to wear a white T-shirt and say, «Put your hands in the air.» At the lineup, witnesses to the bank robbery identified the defendant as the bank robber. The next day, the defendant was arraigned on the charges.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
It has been held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is in place for post-charge line-ups. Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220 (1977). It has also been held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is in place for arraignment. Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961). See also Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 689 (1972) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to line-up occurring «at or after the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings — whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.»)
Evidence of a line-up in the absence of counsel must be suppressed unless an in-court identification by the same witness is entered into evidence by the prosecution and is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification is based on observations of the defendant independent of the tainted confrontation. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 239-40 (1967).
C is correct. A defendant has the right to counsel after formal proceedings have begun, but not before. This initial appearance before a judge is required after a defendant is arrested to make sure the detainment is proper and inform the defendant of the charges. However, here the official arraignment was set for the next day. When the defendant made an initial appearance, no proceedings had begun and therefore he was not entitled to counsel. Thus, there was no right to counsel at the initial appearance. However, the defendant was charged before the line-up, which means adversarial proceedings had begun. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to counsel at the line-up and his Sixth Amendment rights were violated.
A is incorrect. The defendant's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment was indeed violated when no counsel was provided for the post-charging line-up. Although there was no constitutional violation at the initial appearance, the subsequent line-up was a violation.
B is incorrect. The conclusion is correct, but the reasoning is incorrect. The right to counsel applies to all stages of prosecution after formal proceedings have begun. The initial appearance was the beginning of the formal proceedings. As a result, the right to counsel had not attached at the initial appearance but was for all proceedings after.
D is incorrect. The conclusion is correct, but the reasoning is incorrect. The right to counsel was not present at the initial appearance but was for all proceedings after based on the rule that once formal adversarial proceedings have begun, the right to counsel attaches. Therefore, the constitutional violation was only based on the post-charging line-up.