United States v. Zeiler
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The Supreme Court later held in United States v. Ash that the Sixth Amendment does not require counsel at a photographic display. The confirmed adverse treatments are listed below; Zeiler's separate discussion of suggestive identification evidence was not the subject of Reed's express overruling.
28 later cases cite United States v. Zeiler; 28 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. Zeiler?
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
Overruled in part
-
The Third Circuit en banc overruled Zeiler's holding that a pretrial photographic identification is a critical stage requiring counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
United States ex rel. Reed v. Anderson · Third Circuit · filed
We therefore overrule that portion of Zeiler which denominated a pre-trial photographic identification as a critical stage requiring the presence of counsel to satisfy the Sixth Amendment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Declined to follow
-
The Ninth Circuit rejected Zeiler's contrary rule that counsel was required during a custodial photographic identification.
United States v. Williams · Ninth Circuit · filed
The contrary decision of the Third Circuit in United States v. Zeiler, 3 Cir., 1970, 427 F.2d 1305, does not persuade us to change our views.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The California Supreme Court held that the right to counsel did not extend to post-arrest photographic identifications and cited Zeiler as contrary authority.
People v. Lawrence · Supreme Court of California · filed
Accordingly, we conclude the right *280to counsel does not extend to post-arrest photographic identification proceedings. ... Contra, United States v. Zeiler (3d Cir. 1970) 427 F.2d 1305;
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Missouri Supreme Court expressly declined to follow Zeiler's counsel requirement for photographic identifications.
State v. Brookins · Supreme Court of Missouri · filed
Defendant relies primarily on United States v. Zeiler, 3 Cir., 427 F.2d 1305, which so far as we can determine stands alone in imposing the requirement that photographic identification is impermissible in the absence of counsel for the accused. The facts of that case seem to us to have been properly subject to the rule announced in the Simmons case, and there was no occasion for the far-reaching pronouncement there made. In any event, we decline to follow the Zeiler case, but instead we consider the proper rule to be that announced in United States v. Bennett, 2 Cir., 409 F.2d 888, certiorari denied (captioned Haywood v. United States), 396 U.S. 852, 90 S.Ct. 113, 24 L.Ed.2d 101.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eighth Circuit expressly declined to follow Zeiler's counsel rule for photographic identifications.
United States v. Long · Eighth Circuit · filed
We agree with this reasoning and decline to follow Zeiler.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Pennsylvania Superior Court adopted the rule of Ash and held that counsel was not required during an identification by photographic display of a suspect in custody.
Commonwealth v. Jackson · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · filed
Since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was bound by the doctrine of Commonwealth v. Negri, 419 Pa. 117 (1965), to follow Zeiler, we feel the recent overruling of Zeiler has re-opened the question of the propriety of conducting an identification by photographic layout when a suspect in custody has not been given the opportunity of having his counsel present.3 We conclude *10that United States v. Ash, supra, stands for the better rule.4 Thus, so long as the display is available for use by the defense, there is no constitutional requirement that the suspect in custody be afforded the right to have counsel present.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Zeiler 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