Gilbert v. California
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
143 later cases cite Gilbert v. California; 143 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 Gilbert v. California?
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 made Gilbert's lineup-counsel and exclusionary rules unavailable to confrontations conducted before June 12, 1967.
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.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The California Court of Appeal declined to extend Gilbert's lineup-counsel rule to pretrial photographic identification conferences.
People v. Adair · California Court of Appeal · filed
The difficulties, recognized in Wade and Gilbert, encountered by the accused in seeking to reproduce at trial the evanescent subtleties of a pretrial police lineup are far different from attempting to reproduce procedures followed at a pretrial photographic identification conference. ... We thus conclude an accused, though represented by counsel, has no constitutional right to have his attorney present at the prosecution’s pretrial photographic identification conferences.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The California Court of Appeal held Gilbert's lineup-counsel rule inapplicable to pretrial photographic identifications.
People v. Hawkins · California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One · filed
The rule an accused is entitled to be represented by counsel at a pretrial lineup identification, declared in Wade and Gilbert, does not apply to a pretrial identification by photograph under circumstances such as in this case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Illinois Supreme Court declined to require defense counsel at photographic identification proceedings where the accused was not present.
People v. Holiday · Supreme Court of Illinois · filed
We do not, however, find that the Wade-Gilbert doctrine requires the presence of defense counsel at photographic identification proceedings where the defendant himself is not present.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eighth Circuit adopted the view that Gilbert's lineup-counsel rule does not extend to post-custody photographic identifications.
United States v. Long · Eighth Circuit · filed
Williams first argues that, on the authority of United States v. Wade, 1967, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, and Gilbert v. California, 1967, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178, he was entitled to have his counsel present when the prosecution, as part of its preparation for trial and after Williams was in custody, showed the photographs to the two eyewitnesses. We have rejected this contention. ... We agree with this reasoning and decline to follow Zeiler.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals held Gilbert inapplicable to identifications made from photographs.
Crenshaw v. State · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · filed
In Smith and Samuels, Judge Orth, speaking for this Court, held that Wade, supra, and Gilbert v. California, 388 U. S. 263, 87 S. Ct. 1951, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1178 (1967), are not applicable to identifications made from photographs.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The North Carolina Supreme Court expressly declined to extend Gilbert to out-of-court photographic examinations, whether or not the suspect was in custody.
State v. Shutt · Supreme Court of North Carolina · filed
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 held that Gilbert's right-to-counsel rule does not extend to photographic displays used to seek a witness identification.
United States v. Ash · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
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 Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to extend Gilbert's identification safeguards from identifying an accused to identifying physical objects, holding that suggestiveness affects the evidence's weight rather than admissibility.
Commonwealth v. Chmiel · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · filed
We agree with the other states that have examined the issue that there is no basis for applying the identification procedures applicable to suspects to testimony identifying inanimate objects and we decline to extend cases protecting the accused’s rights to a fair pre-trial identification to the pre-trial identification of physical evidence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Gilbert v. California 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