Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 (1969)

Facts

A robbery occurred at a Western Union office and a lineup was held with Foster (6’) and two other men (5’5” – 5’6”).  The witness was unsure on the identity.  A one to one confrontation then occurred and the witness was still unsure.  A second lineup was held and Foster was the only “repeat” member of the lineup and the witness identified Foster as the robber.

Procedural History

At trial, the witness testified to his identification of Foster and repeated his identification in the courtroom.

Issue(s)

Was the conduct of the lineups so unfair as to taint the validity of the witness identification?

Holding(s)

Yes.

Reasoning/Analysis

The Court found that because the robbery occurred prior to the holding from Wade, the Court must look at the totality of the circumstances.  Judged by this standard, this case presents a compelling example of unfair lineup procedures.  The suggestive elements made it all but inevitable that the witness would identify Foster.

Judgment/Outcome

The Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the trial court.