# Kirby v. Illinois

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 7, 1972 · 406 U.S. 682

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424908

## Case

- **Full name:** Kirby v. Illinois
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 7, 1972
- **Citations:** 406 U.S. 682; 92 S. Ct. 1877; 32 L. Ed. 2d 411; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 49
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Powell
- **Judges:** Stewart, Court'S, Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Powell, Brennan, Douglas, Marshall, White
- **Cited by:** 2,613 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/9424908

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that a police station showup conducted after defendant's arrest, but before the initiation of any adversary criminal proceeding — whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment — is not a criminal prosecution at which t…
- holding that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated in a lineup as the privilege against self-incrimination protects an accused only from being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the State with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature
- holding that a lineup conducted after a defendant's arrest, but before arraignment, indictment, or formal charges is merely investigatory in nature; therefore, the defendant is not entitled to presence of counsel at such a lineup
- stating that the Sixth Amendment right to coun- sel attaches upon "the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings--whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment"
- stating that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches upon "the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings--whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment"

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Powell,
concurring in the result.
As I would not extend the Wade-Gilbert per se exclusionary rule, I concur in the result reached by the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424908. Public record. Not legal advice.