Facts of the Case
Jesse James Gilbert was charged with armed robbery and the murder of a police officer in Alhambra, California. Gilbert refused to answer questions about the robbery charge without the advice of counsel, but later answered questions about a robbery in which the robber, allegedly Gilbert, used a handwritten note demanding the money. He gave the police handwriting exemplars, which were later admitted into evidence. The police also had eyewitnesses identify Gilbert in a line-up that was conducted without notice to his counsel. During the trial, several witnesses identified Gilbert in the courtroom as being a part of multiple robberies, including the Alhambra robbery. No distinction was made as to whether the in-court identifications were independent of the illegal line-ups that occurred before the trial. The jury rendered a guilty verdict and imposed the death penalty. The California Supreme Court affirmed.
Questions
(1) Does taking of handwriting exemplars violate the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination?
(2) Are in-court identifications unconstitutional if there was no determination of whether they were influenced by an illegal lineup procedure?
Conclusions
-
No, yes. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. delivered the opinion of the 6-3 majority. The Court held that taking the handwriting exemplars was constitutional. While the Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, a handwriting exemplar simply identifies a physical characteristic and is therefore outside of its protection. Also, taking exemplars without counsel present would not affect the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The Court held that the admission of the in-court identifications without determining them to be impartial violates the Constitution. Since the identification line-up was the result of an illegal procedure, the state must establish that the in-court identifications are independent of those conducted illegally.
Justice Hugo L. Black delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in which he argued that the admission of the writing exemplars violated Gilbert’s constitutional rights because his counsel was not present at the time this evidence was obtained. In his separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice William O. Douglas wrote that the general search for evidence did not violate the Constitution.
Justice Byron R. White wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that there was no need to establish that the in-court identifications were independent from the illegal identification line-up. Justice John M. Harlan and Justice Potter Stewart joined in the dissenting opinion.
Remedying Criminal Trial Errors: Retrial or Acquittal in Smith v. United States?
Federalist Society Review, Volume 24
The best-known rule of criminal procedure is that the government may not deprive someone of...
