United States v. Wade/Concurrence Clark

931175United States v. Wade — ConcurrenceTom C. Clark
Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Opinion of the Court
Concurring Opinion
Clark
Concurrence/Dissents
Black
White
Fortas
 Wikipedia article

Mr. Justice CLARK, concurring.

With reference to the lineup point involved in this case I cannot, for the life of me, see why a lineup is not a critical stage of the prosecution. Identification of the suspect-a prerequisite to establishment of guilt-occurs at this stage, and with Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), on the books, the requirement of the presence of counsel arises, unless waived by the suspect. I dissented in Miranda but I am bound by it now, as we all are. Schmerber v. State of California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), precludes petitioner's claim of self-incrimination. I therefore join the opinion of the Court.

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse