The rights to counsel and to due process apply in lineups, showups, and photographic identification, but the rights to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and self-incrimination do not.

Sample Solution

The Balancing Act: Due Process and Fair Identification Procedures

The Supreme Court distinguishes between the rights applicable to lineups, showups, and photographic identification procedures and those applied to searches and seizures and self-incrimination. This distinction reflects a balancing act between protecting against misidentification and ensuring efficient law enforcement.

The Rights Applied: Safeguarding Against Misidentification

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel during "critical stages" of a criminal prosecution. Lineups, showups, and photo ID procedures can be crucial in establishing a defendant's guilt. An unfair identification procedure, where the suspect is singled out or the lineup is suggestive, can lead to the conviction of an innocent person. Therefore, the Court applies the right to counsel to ensure that a lawyer can be present to advise the defendant and protect their rights during these procedures. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause also mandates fair procedures. In the context of identification, this means ensuring the lineup or photo ID presentation doesn't unduly suggest the defendant is guilty.

Full Answer Section

Why Not Search & Seizure or Self-Incrimination?

The exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures, deters police misconduct but doesn't directly address the fairness of the identification itself. Similarly, the Fifth Amendment's right against self-incrimination protects against compelled confessions, not the inherent suggestiveness of an identification procedure.

The Court's Reasoning: Balancing Fairness and Efficiency

The Court's reasoning makes sense by considering the potential consequences of each right. Excluding reliable eyewitness testimony solely because of a suggestive procedure, even if unintentional, could hinder investigations. However, the potential for wrongful convictions necessitates safeguards like the right to counsel and fair procedures in identification processes.

Neil v. Biggers and the Fairness Test

In Neil v. Biggers (1972), the Court established a "totality of the circumstances" test for determining the fairness of an identification procedure. This considers factors like:

• The witness' opportunity to view the crime: A clearer view of the perpetrator increases the reliability of the identification.
• The witness' degree of attention: A witness who was focused on the crime is more likely to provide an accurate description.
• The suggestiveness of the identification procedure: A lineup with only the defendant closely resembling the suspect is suggestive.
• The witness' level of certainty: A witness who is unsure of their identification weakens the evidence.

These factors are important because they paint a picture of how likely the identification was based on the actual crime scene encounter and not influenced by the procedures themselves. By considering these circumstances, courts can ensure that eyewitness testimony used at trial is reliable and contributes to a just outcome.

In conclusion, the Court's distinction between applicable rights reflects a balancing act. The right to counsel and due process safeguards against misidentification during pre-trial procedures, while still allowing for the use of reliable eyewitness testimony in court