The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Coleman (Ds) were convicted of assault with intent to murder in the shooting of one Reynolds after he and his wife parked their car on an Alabama highway to change a flat tire. Reynolds testified that he saw him 'in the car lights' while 'looking straight at him.' 'I looked into his face,' 'got a real good look at him.' D appealed, claiming that he was not provided counsel at the preliminary hearing and since the preliminary hearing was a 'critical stage' of the prosecution, this failure was unconstitutional. D also claims that they were subjected to a station house lineup in circumstances so unduly prejudicial and conducive to irreparable misidentification as fatally to taint Reynolds' in-court identifications of them at the trial. The lineup of which petitioners complain was conducted two months after the assault and seven months before trial. Ds concede that since the lineup occurred before United States v. Wade. Ds argue that the conduct of the lineup was so unduly prejudicial as fatally to taint Reynolds' in-court identification of them. This is a claim that must be determined on the totality of the surrounding circumstances. The Alabama Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Alabama Supreme Court denied review.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.