United States v. Wade
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
8,437 later cases cite United States v. Wade; 257 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on United States v. Wade?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The Supreme Court held Wade's lineup-counsel rule nonretroactive.
Stovall v. Denno · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
We hold that Wade and Gilbert affect only those cases and all future cases which involve confrontations for identification purposes conducted in the absence of counsel after this date. The rulings of Wade and Gilbert are therefore inapplicable in the present case. ... We conclude, therefore, that the Wade and Gilbert rules should not be made retroactive.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals applied Stovall and held that Wade did not govern a pre-decision lineup.
Hull v. State · Texas Court of Criminal Appeals · filed
Appellant’s able counsel on appeal recognizes that the line-up was prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178, and this case is not ruled by these opinions. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals applied Stovall and held Wade inapplicable to an earlier identification.
Evans v. State · Texas Court of Criminal Appeals · filed
These cases are not controlling, because the identification occurred on July 20, 1966, approximately a year before they were decided. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, held that Wade and Gilbert were not to be applied retrospectively.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals held Wade's counsel rule unavailable for a lineup before its effective date.
Schoonover v. State · Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals · filed
The procedure followed by the police in establishing the line-up appears to have been done with scrupulous fairness and without prejudice to the defendant at the trial; and it was before the effective date of the ruling of the United States Supreme Court which requires counsel at pretrial confrontations for identification. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of Illinois applied Stovall's cutoff to Wade's counsel rule.
People v. Moore · Supreme Court of Illinois · filed
In People v. Nelson, 40 Ill.2d 146, this court observed that the Supreme Court in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1199, 87 S. Ct. 1967, recognized that where “a pretrial identification proceeding occurred on or before June 12, 1967, [the effective date of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1149, 87 S. Ct. 1926, and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1178, 87 S. Ct. 1951] a defendant, who was without counsel, is free to establish, based on the totality of the surrounding circumstances, that the viewing of the accused was so wanting in fairness as to deprive him of due process of law.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The California Court of Appeal held Wade nonretroactive for identifications predating its decision.
People v. Adair · California Court of Appeal · filed
Appellant rests his claim upon United States v. Wade (1967) 388 U.S. 218 [18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 87 S.Ct. 1926] and Gilbert v. California (1967) 388 U.S. 263 [18 L.Ed.2d 1178, 87 S.Ct. 1951]. They do not assist him. ... These decisions were held to have no application to lineups occurring before such date.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The California Court of Appeal held that Wade created no counsel right for an earlier lineup.
People v. Lyons · California Court of Appeal · filed
Since the lineup preceded the decision in United States v. Wade (1967) 388 U.S. 218 [18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 87 S.Ct. 1926], no right to have ... counsel present existed.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of North Carolina held Wade nonretroactive.
State v. Austin · Supreme Court of North Carolina · filed
Wade and Gilbert do not apply retroactively, however, and affect only cases involving lineups for identification purposes conducted after June 12, 1967.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The New Jersey Appellate Division applied Stovall and held Wade unavailable for earlier lineups.
State v. Mustacchio · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · filed
In Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 300, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed. 2d 1199 (1967), the court held that an accused's right to counsel at a lineup mandated by Wade did not apply to lineups conducted prior to June 12, 1967.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of Virginia declined to extend Wade from a post-indictment lineup to a pre-indictment confrontation.
Buchanan v. Commonwealth · Supreme Court of Virginia · filed
The crucial inquiry then becomes whether Wade and Gilbert, factually presenting questions related solely to post-indictment line-ups conducted after appointment of counsel, should be held to apply to the line-up involved in this case, conducted several hours after occurrence of the offense and before indictment and appointment of counsel. We believe the inquiry should be answered in the negative.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of California applied Stovall and held Wade unavailable for pre-June 1967 identifications.
People v. Hernandez · Supreme Court of California · filed
The pretrial identifications all took place prior to June 12, 1967, and the rules announced in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 236-237 [18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1162-1163, 87 S.Ct. 1926] and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 272 [18 L.Ed.2d 1178, 1186, 87 S.Ct. 1951] are therefore inapplicable.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eighth Circuit declined to extend Wade's lineup rule to photographic identifications.
United States v. Long · Eighth Circuit · filed
Richmond relies principally upon United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967) ... In Zeiler, the Third Circuit extended that rule to photo identifications. ... We agree with this reasoning and decline to follow Zeiler.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals declined to extend Wade to photographic identifications.
Crenshaw v. State · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · filed
The overwhelming weight of authority declines to extend Wade and Gilbert to photographic identifications.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals expressly declined to extend Wade to a prompt confrontation near the crime scene.
Cole v. State · Texas Court of Criminal Appeals · filed
As we view the matter each case must be decided on the basis of its own particular facts. We decline to extend the Wade-Gilbert holdings to the instant case given the circumstances here presented.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of North Carolina declined to extend Wade to out-of-court photographic examinations.
State v. Shutt · Supreme Court of North Carolina · filed
In our view, the doctrine of Wade [United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S. Ct. 1926, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1149] and Gilbert [Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S. Ct. 1951, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1178] should not be extended to out-of-court examinations of photographs including that of a suspect, whether the suspect be at liberty or in custody.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of Arizona declined to extend Wade to every precharge lineup.
State v. Nunez · Supreme Court of Arizona · filed
Dessureault is still the law of this jurisdiction and we decline to follow the request of the defendant that the rule of Wade and Gilbert be extended to all line-ups either held prior to the filing of an information or subsequent to it.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court declined to extend Wade's per se exclusionary rule to a precharge showup.
Kirby v. Illinois · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
In the present case we are asked to extend the Wade-Gilbert per se exclusionary rule to identification testimony based upon a police station showup that took place before the defendant had been indicted or otherwise formally charged with any criminal offense. ... In this case we are asked to import into a routine police investigation an absolute constitutional guarantee historically and rationally applicable only after the onset of formal prosecutorial proceedings. We decline to do so.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court declined to extend Wade's counsel right to post-indictment photographic displays.
United States v. Ash · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
The structure of Wade, viewed in light of the careful limitation of the Court’s language to “confrontations,” makes it clear that lack of scientific precision and inability to reconstruct an event are not the tests for requiring counsel in the first instance. ... Even if we were willing to view the counsel guarantee in broad terms as a generalized protection of the adversary process, we would be unwilling to go so far as to extend the right to a portion of the prosecutor’s trial-preparation interviews with witnesses. ... We hold, then, that the Sixth Amendment does not grant the right to counsel at photographic displays conducted by the Government for the purpose of allowing a witness to attempt an identification of the offender.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Western District of New York applied Stovall and held Wade's exclusionary rule unavailable for an earlier identification.
United States ex rel. Jackson v. Henderson · W.D.N.Y. · filed
Since the right to counsel at the critical lineup did not exist before the Wade-Gilbert decisions, the sanction of a per se exclusionary rule covering testimony of other pretrial identification procedures cannot be applied to identifications that took place before Gilbert, as in the instant case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Pennsylvania Superior Court declined to extend Wade's identification safeguards from accused persons to tattoos or other physical evidence.
Commonwealth v. Crork · Pennsylvania Superior Court · filed
Neither the United States Supreme Court nor our Court has addressed whether the decisions in Wade, Gilbert, and Stovall extend the protections that are necessary for identification testimony of an accused to that of inanimate objects. ... We simply find that there is no basis for applying the identification procedures applicable to suspects to the identification of physical evidence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Wade and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace