# United States v. Wade

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 12, 1967 · 388 U.S. 218

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423473

## Case

- **Full name:** United States v. Wade
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 12, 1967
- **Citations:** 388 U.S. 218; 87 S. Ct. 1926; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1149; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1085
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Clark
- **Judges:** Brennan, Clark, Black, White, Fortas, Foutas, Douglas, California, Amendment, Harlan, Stewart
- **Cited by:** 7,224 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423473

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that autopsy is medical procedure and that such procedure is not critical stage of proceedings
- holding that the “proper test” to be applied when an illegal pretrial identification procedure has been conducted is to determine whether “the in-court identifications had an independent source,” i.e., “[w]hether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence …
- stating that the denial of a right USCA11 Case: 23-11749 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2025 Page: 4 of 14 4 Opinion of the Court 23-11749 to have counsel present when “analyzing . . . the accused’s finger- prints, blood sample, clothing, hair, and the like” does not violate…
- holding that where defense counsel was not present at a 4 lineup identification, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the witness’s in-court 5 identification of the defendant was based on observations of the defendant othe…
- holding that where defense counsel was not present at a lineup identification, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the witness's in-court identification of the defendant was based on observations of the defendant other th…

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Clark,
concurring.
With reference to the lineup point involved in this case I cannot, for the life of me, see why a lineup is not a critical stage of the prosecution. Identification of the suspect — a’prerequisite to establishment of guilt — occurs at this stage, and with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), on the books, the requirement of the presence of counsel arises, unless waived by the suspect. I dissented in Miranda but I am bound by it now, as we all are. Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 (1966), precludes petitioner’s claim of self-incrimination. I therefore join the opinion of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423473. Public record. Not legal advice.