Gilbert v. California (1966)
- Docket
- 223
- Decided
- 1966-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: (1) Does taking of handwriting exemplars violate the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination? (2) Are in-court identifications unconstitutional if there was no determination of whether they were influenced by an illegal lineup procedure? Conclusion: No, yes. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. delivered the opinion of the 6-3 majority. The Court held that taking the handwriting exemplars was constitutional. While the Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, a handwriting exemplar simply identifies a physical characteristic and is therefore outside of its protection. Also, taking exemplars without counsel present would not affect the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The Court held that the admission of the in-court identifications without determining them to be impartial violates the Constitution. Since the identification line-up was the result of an illegal procedure, the state must establish that the in-court identifications are independent of those conducted illegally. Justice Hugo L. Black delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in which he argued that the admission of the writing exemplars violated Gilbert’s constitutional rights because his counsel was not present at the time this evidence was obtained. In his separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice William O. Douglas wrote that the general search for evidence did not violate the Constitution. Justice Byron R. White wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that there was no need to establish that the in-court identifications were independent from the illegal identification line-up. Justice John M. Harlan and Justice Potter Stewart joined in the dissenting opinion.