GILBERT
v.
CALIFORNIA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Gilbert was convicted of capital crimes based partly on eyewitness identifications derived from unlawfully seized photographs and a police lineup conducted without his attorney's presence, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether his constitutional rights to due process, protection against self-incrimination, protection against unreasonable searches, the right to counsel, and assistance of counsel were violated in these circumstances.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the petition which read as follows:
“2. Whether a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to due process of law and his guarantee against self-incrimination were violated where the conviction of petitioner Gilbert was based substantially upon the out-of-court declaration of his co-defendant King which recited Gilbert’s participation in robbery, kidnaping and murder and King’s in-court confession which the California Court has ruled as a matter of state law was impelled by the wrongful admission of King’s hearsay statements.
“3. Whether a criminal defendant’s constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure was violated where a conviction was had upon a capital offense and sentence of death was rendered upon eyewitness identification that was based, in whole or in part, upon a viewing by such witnesses of four photographs that were seized by the F. B. I. from petitioner’s locked private apartment without either an arrest or search warrant at a time when an arrest had not been made and could not be made, all contrary to the fair administration of criminal justice and due process provisions of the United States Constitution.
“4. Whether a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to counsel was violated where he was convicted of a capital offense and sentenced to death upon eyewitness testimony that was based, in whole or in part, upon a viewing by such witnesses of unlawfully seized photographs prior to their attendance at a police line-up where petitioner was compelled to appear, without notice, and his attorney was not given opportunity to be present, all contrary to the fair administration of criminal justice and due process provisions of the United States Constitution.
“5. Whether a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to the assistance of counsel was violated where following his arrest by the Federal Bureau of Investigation he demanded the protections afforded by presence of counsel and, that same evening, an F. B. I. agent took handwriting exemplars from him that were subsequently used against him at trial of a capital offense, all contrary to the fair administration of criminal justice and due process provisions of the United States Constitution.”
'Case transferred to appellate docket.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1967)…the robbery. There were separate guilt and penalty stages of the trial before the same jury, which rendered a guilty verdict and imposed the death penalty. The California Supreme Court affirmed, 63 Cal. 2d 690, 408 P. 2d 365. We granted certiorari, 384 U. S. 985, and set the case for argument with Wade and with Stovall v. Denno, post, p. 293. If our holding today in Wade is applied to this case, the issue whether admission of the in-court and lineup identifications is constitutional error which requires a…
-
Gilbert v. United States, 366 F.2d 923 (9th Cir. 1966)…same effect, e. g., State v. Fisher, Ore., 1966, 410 P. 2d 216, 217; People v. Graves, Cal., 1966, 49 Cal.Rptr. 386, 411 P. 2d 114, 115-116; People v. Gilbert, Cal., 1965, 63 Cal.2d 690, 47 Cal.Rptr. 909, 408 P. 2d 365, 376-377 cert. granted, 1966, 384 U.S. 985, 86 S.Ct. 1902, 16 L.Ed.2d 1003; People v. Lopez, Cal., 1963, 32 Cal.Rptr. 424, 384 P. 2d 16, 27-28. The foregoing cases involve such matters as police lineups, Rigney v. Hendrick, supra, Williams v. United States, supra, Copeland v. United States,…1 / 2
-
United States v. Braverman, 376 F.2d 249 (2d Cir. 1967)…violated when, after arrest and a request for counsel, an FBI agent took handwriting samples from the petitioner before any attorney had arrived. People of State of California v. Gilbert, 63 Cal.2d 690, 47 Cal.Rptr. 909, 408 P. 2d 365, cert. granted 384 U.S. 985, 86 S.Ct. 1902, 16 L.Ed.2d 1003. . Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471. 489, fn. 15, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); see also 7 Wigmore on Evidence § 2072.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence