Stovall v. Denno
| Stovall v. Denno | |
|---|---|
| Argued February 16, 1967 Decided June 12, 1967 | |
| Full case name | Theodore Stovall v. Wilfred Denno, Warden |
| Citations | 388 U.S. 293 (more) 87 S. Ct. 1967; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1199 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant convicted; affirmed, New York Court of Appeals, 13 N.Y.2d 1094 (1963); habeas corpus petition denied, 355 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1966); cert granted, 384 U.S. 1000 (1966). |
| Holding | |
| A pre-trial identification made in the absence of counsel but not violating the Sixth Amendment should be excluded if it is so unnecessarily suggestive as to violate due process. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Brennan, joined by Warren, Clark, Harlan, Stewart, White |
| Concurrence | White, joined by Harlan, Stewart |
| Dissent | Douglas |
| Dissent | Fortas |
| Dissent | Black |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. VI, U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
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.