|
|
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
|
|
|
<case id="50689" source="Oyez API" schema="simple-legal-case-xml-v1"><name>Kirby v. Illinois</name><docketNumber>70-5061</docketNumber><term>1971</term><court><name>Burger Court (1971-1972)</name><identifier>burger3</identifier><href>https://api.oyez.org/courts/burger3</href></court><parties><firstParty role="Petitioner">Thomas Kirby</firstParty><secondParty role="Respondent">Illinois</secondParty></parties><dates><date type="reargued">1972-03-20</date><date type="reargued">1972-03-21</date><date type="decided">1972-06-07</date><date type="argued">1971-11-11</date><date type="granted">1971-05-24</date></dates><citation><volume>406</volume><page>682</page><year>1972</year><href>https://api.oyez.org/case_citation/case_citation/14617</href><justia_url>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/682/</justia_url></citation><jurisdiction>Writ of <i>certiorari</i></jurisdiction><facts><html><p>William Shard reported to the Chicago police that two men stole his wallet. The wallet contained traveler’s checks and his social security card, among other things. The next day, two police officers stopped Thomas Kirby and his friend, Ralph Bean. When asked for identification, Kirby produced Shard’s wallet. The officers arrested Kirby and Bean and brought them to the Maxwell Street Police Station. Once there, the officers learned about Shard’s robbery and sent a car to pick up Shard and bring him to the station. Without an attorney present, police asked Shard if Kirby and Bean were his robbers. Shard instantly gave a positive identification. Kirby and Bean were not indicted until almost 6 weeks later. At trial, Kirby unsuccessfully attempted to suppress Shard’s identification. The jury found Kirby guilty and the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District affirmed.</p>
|
|
|
</html><text>William Shard reported to the Chicago police that two men stole his wallet. The wallet contained traveler’s checks and his social security card, among other things. The next day, two police officers stopped Thomas Kirby and his friend, Ralph Bean. When asked for identification, Kirby produced Shard’s wallet. The officers arrested Kirby and Bean and brought them to the Maxwell Street Police Station. Once there, the officers learned about Shard’s robbery and sent a car to pick up Shard and bring him to the station. Without an attorney present, police asked Shard if Kirby and Bean were his robbers. Shard instantly gave a positive identification. Kirby and Bean were not indicted until almost 6 weeks later. At trial, Kirby unsuccessfully attempted to suppress Shard’s identification. The jury found Kirby guilty and the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District affirmed.</text></facts><questions /><conclusion><html><p>No. Justice Potter Stewart, writing for a four justice plurality, delivered the judgment of the court. The plurality expressed that there is no constitutional right to counsel for an identification that takes place before the accused is indicted or formally charged. For this reason, the Exclusionary Rule does not apply, and the identification can be admitted at trial. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger concurred, emphasizing that the right to counsel does not attach until an accused is formally charged. Justice Lewis F. Powell concurred in the judgment, agreeing that the Exclusionary Rule does not apply.</p>
|
|
|
<p>Justice William J. Brennan dissented, arguing that prior Supreme Court Exclusionary Rule precedent just happened to cover post-indictment identifications, but the reasons for using the Rule are the same in pre-indictment cases. Justice William O. Douglas and Justice Thurgood Marshall joined in the dissent. Justice Byron R. White dissented, arguing that the Exclusionary Rule applies in this case.</p>
|
|
|
</html><text>No. Justice Potter Stewart, writing for a four justice plurality, delivered the judgment of the court. The plurality expressed that there is no constitutional right to counsel for an identification that takes place before the accused is indicted or formally charged. For this reason, the Exclusionary Rule does not apply, and the identification can be admitted at trial. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger concurred, emphasizing that the right to counsel does not attach until an accused is formally charged. Justice Lewis F. Powell concurred in the judgment, agreeing that the Exclusionary Rule does not apply.
|
|
|
Justice William J. Brennan dissented, arguing that prior Supreme Court Exclusionary Rule precedent just happened to cover post-indictment identifications, but the reasons for using the Rule are the same in pre-indictment cases. Justice William O. Douglas and Justice Thurgood Marshall joined in the dissent. Justice Byron R. White dissented, arguing that the Exclusionary Rule applies in this case.</text></conclusion><advocates><advocate for="for petitioner"><name>Michael P. Seng</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/michael_p_seng</href></advocate><advocate for="for respondent"><name>James B. Zagel</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/james_b_zagel</href></advocate><advocate for="for petitioner on reargument"><name>Jerold S. Solovy</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/jerold_s_solovy</href></advocate><advocate for="for the State of Cal., as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court"><name>Ronald M. George</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/ronald_m_george</href></advocate></advocates><decisions><decision type="plurality opinion" winning_party=""><description /><votes majority="5" minority="4"><vote opinion_type="none" vote="minority" seniority="2"><justice>William O. Douglas</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_o_douglas</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="plurality" vote="majority" seniority="4"><justice>Potter Stewart</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/potter_stewart</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="minority" seniority="6"><justice>Thurgood Marshall</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/thurgood_marshall</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="dissent" vote="minority" seniority="3"><justice>William J. Brennan, Jr.</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_j_brennan_jr</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="dissent" vote="minority" seniority="5"><justice>Byron R. White</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/byron_r_white</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="concurrence" vote="majority" seniority="1"><justice>Warren E. Burger</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/warren_e_burger</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="7"><justice>Harry A. Blackmun</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/harry_a_blackmun</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="special concurrence" vote="majority" seniority="8"><justice>Lewis F. Powell, Jr.</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/lewis_f_powell_jr</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="9"><justice>William H. Rehnquist</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_h_rehnquist</justice_href></vote></votes></decision></decisions><source><href>https://api.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-5061</href><raw_file>D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\json_data\api.oyez.org_cases_1971_70-5061.json</raw_file></source></case> |
