Q1: What area of law does United States v. Wade primarily address?
Criminal Procedure
Q2: What was the central legal issue in United States v. Wade?
Whether a post-indictment corporeal lineup is a critical stage of the prosecution that triggers the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and if the right is violated, what the proper remedy is for both evidence of the lineup identifications and any subsequent in-court identifications.
Q3: What rule did the court apply?
A post-indictment corporeal lineup is a critical stage of the prosecution, and the Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to counsel at that lineup unless there is a knowing and intelligent waiver. Evidence of a lineup identification obtained in violation of that right is inadmissible at trial. An in-court identification following an uncounseled lineup is inadmissible unless the prosecution establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification rests on an independent source untainted by the illegal lineup. Compelling a defendant to speak or to don items of clothing or disguise in a lineup does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination because those acts are not testimonial.
Q4: What was the court's holding?
Yes. A post-indictment lineup is a critical stage at which the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, and the lineup conducted without notice to or presence of counsel violated that right. Evidence of the out-of-court lineup identifications must be excluded. The case is remanded for a hearing to determine whether the witnesses in-court identifications had an independent source; if not, those identifications must be excluded and a new trial ordered.
Q5: Why is United States v. Wade significant?
Wade launched the modern framework for identification evidence, establishing that counsel is required at post-indictment corporeal lineups and that courts must scrutinize subsequent identifications through an independent source inquiry. Together with Gilbert v. California and Stovall v. Denno, Wade forms the foundational trilogy that structures suppression hearings, often referred to as Wade hearings. Later cases limited and complemented Wade: Kirby v. Illinois held there is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel at pre-indictment lineups; United States v. Ash held no right to counsel at post-indictment photo arrays; and due process cases such as Neil v. Biggers and Manson v. Brathwaite supply reliability tests for suggestive procedures. For law students, Wade is crucial on exams and in practice for spotting when the right to counsel attaches, distinguishing between corporeal versus photographic procedures, and applying the independent source and exclusion rules.