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

Three eyewitnesses who identified D at the guilt stage of the trial had observed him at a lineup conducted without notice to his counsel in a Los Angeles auditorium 16 days after his indictment and after the appointment of counsel. The manager of the apartment house in which incriminating evidence was found, and in which D allegedly resided, identified D in the courtroom and also testified, in substance, to her prior lineup identification on examination by the P. Eight witnesses who identified him in the courtroom at the penalty stage were not eyewitnesses to the crimes but to other robberies allegedly committed by D. In addition to their in-court identifications, these witnesses also testified that they identified D at the same lineup. The lineup was on a stage behind bright lights which prevented those in the line from seeing the audience. Upwards of 100 persons were in the audience, each an eyewitness to one of the several robberies charged to D. At trial, D moved to strike the testimony on the ground that they identified D at the pretrial lineup conducted in the absence of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial judge denied the motions. D was convicted and the California Supreme Court eventually affirmed the conviction. D appealed.

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

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

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