Neil v. Biggers

Last updated
Neil v. Biggers
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 18 and 19, 1972
Decided December 6, 1972
Full case nameWilliam S. Neil, Warden v. Archie Nathaniel Biggers
Citations409 U.S. 188 ( more )
93 S.Ct. 375
Argument Oral argument
Case history
Prior448 F.2d 91 (6th Cir. 1971)
Questions presented
Does an affirmance by an equally divided Court qualify as an "actual adjudication" barring subsequent consideration on habeas corpus? And, if not, did the identification procedure violate due process?
Holding
The Court's equally divided affirmance of Biggers' state court conviction does not, under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(c), bar further federal relief by habeas corpus, since such an affirmance merely ends the process of direct review, but settles no issue of law. While the station-house identification may have been suggestive, under the totality of the circumstances, the victim's identification of respondent was reliable and was properly allowed to go to the jury.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
MajorityPowell, joined by Burger, White, Blackmun, Rehnquist
Concur/dissentBrennan, joined by Douglas, Stewart
Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1972. [1] The case concerned the reliability of a police lineup. [2]

Contents

Background

In January 1965, Margaret Beamer was the victim of a home invasion. [3] She was forced from her home and raped two blocks away. [3] The entire attack took place during the evening, so she could only give a general description of the perpetrator. [3] During the subsequent investigation, Beamer was unable to identify any suspect during various police lineups. [3] On August 17, 1965, the police arrested Archie Biggers in connection with another rape. [3] They asked Beamer to view Biggers in a "show-up," where Beamer was the only suspect shown. [3] Beamer positively identified Biggers.

The state's case rested "almost exclusively" on the show-up identification. [3] [2] Biggers was found guilty and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. [4] [5] The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, which was affirmed 4-4 by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1968. [6] [7]

Biggers then sought federal habeas corpus relief, which was granted on the grounds that the Supreme Court's prior tied decision was not an "actual adjudication" under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(c) and that the show-up procedure was so suggestive as to violate Due Process. [2] The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. [3]

Decision

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., the Court concluded that its prior tie on Biggers' case did not preclude relief and that the identification procedure at issue did not violate the Due Process Clause. [1] Justice Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case. [4]

Justice Powell began by examining the history of tied Supreme Court cases and determined that such decisions are not precedential. [1] Instead, such a decision merely leaves in place the decision of the lower court. [1]

The Court then examined its precedents relating to the admissibility of evidence, particularly focusing on Stovall v. Denno . [5] The Court held that:

"[T]he factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation." - Justice Powell, Neil v. Biggers 490 U.S. 188, 199 (1972). [5]

Balancing these factors, the Court concluded that there was no "substantial risk of misidentification. [5] "

Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote a partial concurrence and dissent. [5] While he agreed that the previous, tied decision was not an "actual adjudication," he believed that the identification procedure was too suggestive to survive constitutional scrutiny. [5]

Aftermath

The Biggers decision has been criticized as being out of step with modern understandings of eyewitness memory. [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David B. Sentelle</span> American judge

David Bryan Sentelle is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He previously was a U.S. district judge on the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina from 1985 to 1987.

In United States and Canadian law, competence concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings or transactions, and the mental condition a person must have to be responsible for his or her decisions or acts. Competence is an attribute that is decision-specific. Depending on various factors which typically revolve around mental function integrity, an individual may or may not be competent to make a particular medical decision, a particular contractual agreement, to execute an effective deed to real property, or to execute a will having certain terms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">M. Margaret McKeown</span> American judge (born 1951)

Mary Margaret McKeown is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit based in San Diego. McKeown has served on the Ninth Circuit since her confirmation in 1998.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ronald L. Buckwalter</span> American judge (born 1936)

Ronald Lawrence Buckwalter is an inactive senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In eyewitness identification, in criminal law, evidence is received from a witness "who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court".

Judicial misconduct occurs when a judge acts in ways that are considered unethical or otherwise violate the judge's obligations of impartial conduct.

The Federal Contested Elections Act of 1969 signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 5, 1969 provides a procedure for candidates to the United States House of Representatives to contest general elections by filing with the Clerk of the House. The law delegates all matters involving contested elections first to the Committee on House Administration, which receives jurisdiction of such matters by the rules of the House.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sharon Johnson Coleman</span> American judge (born 1960)

Sharon Lynn Johnson Coleman is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. She was formerly a justice of the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, 3rd Division.

Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not attach during a pre-indictment identification.

Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that a pretrial identification not covered by the Sixth Amendment right to counsel should be excluded if it was so unnecessarily suggestive as to violate due process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gary L. Wells</span>

Gary L. Wells is an American psychologist and a scholar in eyewitness memory research. Wells is a professor at Iowa State University with a research interest in the integration of both cognitive psychology and social psychology and its interface with law. He has conducted research on lineup procedures, reliability and accuracy of eyewitness identification. Wells has received many awards and honorary degrees, and he has gained recognition for his work and contributions to psychology and criminal justice.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court held that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions processes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. With its companion case, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court effectively overruled Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which validated some affirmative action in college admissions provided that race had a limited role in decisions.

Texas Senate Bill 5 is a bill that implements a form of voter identification law in the state of Texas. It is a revamped version of a previous Texas voter ID law that was introduced in 2011.

Fitisemanu v. United States was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to consider if the Insular Cases should be overturned and whether people living in American territories such as American Samoa are guaranteed birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Golan v. Saada, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The case reviewed if all ameliorative measures must be taken into consideration before denying a Hague Convention petition once it is found that the child could face harm when returned to a foreign country.

ZF Automotive U. S., Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., 596 U.S. ___ (2022), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court on the scope of §1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code. The issue of statutory interpretation for the Court was whether a private commercial arbitral tribunal constitutes a "foreign or international tribunal" under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) and therefore empowers federal districts courts to compel the production by persons subject to their jurisdiction of documents and testimony for such tribunals.

Stewart v. Heineman, 296 Neb. 262, was a Nebraska Supreme Court case decided on April 7, 2017. The Court upheld the lower court's decision that struck down Nebraska's ban on same-sex couples being licensed as foster parents.

Kenneth William Mayle is known for multiple legal challenges. He is also the father of a Guinea Hog named Chief Wiggum. He was the founder of the Satanic Temple Illinois chapter.

Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1977. The decision touched on the exclusionary rule in state criminal proceedings.

Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Amgen's two patent applications on cholesterol-lower drugs failed to satisfy the enablement clause of §112 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 "William S. NEIL, Warden, v. Archie Nathaniel BIGGERS". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2024-01-06.
  2. 1 2 3 "Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-01-06.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Biggers v. Neil, 448 F.2d 91 | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com. Retrieved 2024-01-06.
  4. 1 2 "Neil v. Biggers". Oyez. Retrieved 2024-01-06.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com. Retrieved 2024-01-06.
  6. ↑ "Biggers v. State, 219 Tenn. 553 | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com. Retrieved 2024-01-06.
  7. ↑ "Biggers v. Tennessee, 390 U.S. 404 (1968)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-01-06.
  8. ↑ Gambell, Suzannah B. (January 2006). "The Need to Revisit the Neil v. Biggers Factors: Suppressing Unreliable Eyewitness Identification". Wyoming Law Review. 6 (1): 189–221.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.