If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. 390 U. S. 383-386. § 2276 (McNaughton rev.1961). Read our student testimonials. 390 U. S. 388-389. necessary to create an enforceable non-gratuitous promise? The Court itself concedes, however, that the deterrent effect on which it relies comes into play, at most, only in "marginal cases" in which the defendant cannot estimate whether the motion to suppress will succeed. The District Court denied the motion to suppress, Garrett's testimony at the "suppression" hearing was, over his objection, admitted against him at trial. law school study materials, including 735 video lessons and 4,900+ We eliminated that Hobson's choice in Jones v. United States, supra, by relaxing the standing requirements. Those courts which have allowed the admission of testimony given to establish standing have reasoned that there is no violation of the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause because the testimony was voluntary. Simmons v. United States. Decided March 18, 1968. . You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. One fish in the Chesapeake Bay, called Diamond Jim, was given a special identification tag. Three of them identified Garrett as the second robber, the other two testifying that they did not get a good look at the second robber. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of This standard accords with our resolution of a similar issue in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 388 U. S. 301-302, and with decisions of other courts on the question of identification by photograph. See P. Wall, Eye-Witness Identification in Criminal Cases 84 (195); Williams, Identification Parades, [1955] Crim.L.Rev. Since search and seizure claims depend heavily upon their individual facts, [Footnote 20] and since the law of search and seizure is in a state of flux, [Footnote 21] the incidence of such marginal cases cannot be said to be negligible. Simmons brought suit against the government (defendant) in federal court. Five bank employees witnessed the robbery, and, on the day it occurred, gave the FBI written statements. § 3500 (the Jencks Act) for the production of the photographs shown to the witnesses before trial, the defense apparently claiming that they were incorporated in the written statements, which the Government had made available to the defense. . The trial court ruled in favor of the government. The procedural disposition (e.g. See, e.g., People v. Evans, 39 Cal. Respondent United States . (a) Each case involving pretrial initial identification by photographs must be considered on its own facts, and convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following such pretrial identification will be set aside on the ground of prejudice only if the pretrial identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. with the chance that the allegations made on the motion to suppress may be used against him at the trial, although that they may is by no means an inevitable holding. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed as to Simmons and Garrett, but reversed the conviction of Andrews on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to connect him with the robbery. other reasons. [Footnote 7] However, the record in this case does not bear out the petitioners' claim that the pictures involved here were part of the statements which were approved by the witnesses and, therefore, producible under § 3500.