756 F.3d 184
2d Cir.2014Background
- Defendants Reed, Johnson, and Gonzalez were criminally charged in federal proceedings arising from a December 1, 2007 shooting connected to Richardson’s drug-trafficking operation.
- On April 5, 2010, a Bronx Grand Jury voted a true bill indicting Reed on multiple charges, but no indictment or arrest followed that vote at that time.
- Early April 2010 Reed was detained; he requested counsel for a lineup, which was denied.
- Navarro identified Reed in a lineup on April 8, 2010, after the grand jury true bill but before formal state indictment, and Reed was later charged by criminal complaint.
- Indictment in federal court followed on June 6, 2011; Reed challenged Navarro’s lineup identification as Sixth Amendment error; evidence at trial included Richardson’s testimony and Navarro’s prior photo-array identification.
- The district court denied suppression, and Reed was convicted on conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, and firearm-use resulting in death; Reed was later sentenced to life imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached when the grand jury voted true bill | Reed: attachment occurred at indictment voting; right to counsel should apply | Government: attachment occurs only when adversary proceedings commence under state law | Attachment is a federal‑law question; not decided here; analysis shows counseling rights may attach earlier but harmless error. |
| Whether the lineup identification violated the Sixth Amendment and was reversible error | Reed: lineup without counsel violated Sixth Amendment | Government: error, if any, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Navarro’s lineup identification was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given strong corroborating evidence and prior identification. |
| Whether the pretrial lineup identification should be excluded per Gilbert v. California | Reed: per se exclusion required | Government: harmless-error standard applies | Not reversible because overall conviction supported by other admissible evidence; error deemed harmless. |
| What is the proper standard to assess if the error affected the verdict | Reed: any Sixth Amendment error affects result | Government: Chapman standard applies for harmless error | Applied Chapman: conviction not likely attributable to lineup error given overwhelming evidence. |
| Is it necessary to decide whether a true bill voting constitutes commencement of adversary proceedings under Rothgery | Reed: theoretical attachment at true bill | Government: decides under state procedure but federal standard governs | Court avoids deciding this subtler issue; proceeds on harmless-error analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (U.S. 2008) (attachment focuses on whether prosecution has commenced under federal standard)
- Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (U.S. 1972) (early stage where defendant faces prosecutorial forces of organized society)
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967) (pretrial lineup requires counsel at a critical stage)
- Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1967) (per se exclusion for pre-trial lineup identification without counsel)
- Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (U.S. 1993) (harmless-error framework for constitutional error in identification)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error standard for constitutional violations)
- Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220 (U.S. 1977) (recognizes harmless-error for Sixth Amendment pretrial identification)
- People v. Cade, 74 N.Y.2d 410 (N.Y. 1989) (true bill vacatur practice permissible absent prejudice)