United States v. Wade
E912661
United States v. Wade is a landmark 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case that established a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel during post-indictment police lineups.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| United States v. Wade canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T11230699 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: United States v. Wade Context triple: [Moore v. Illinois, relatedCase, United States v. Wade]
-
A.
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state criminal prosecutions.
-
B.
Betts v. Brady
Betts v. Brady was a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held indigent defendants in state criminal cases were not automatically entitled to court-appointed counsel, a rule later overturned by Gideon v. Wainwright.
-
C.
United States v. O'Brien
United States v. O'Brien is a landmark 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a federal law banning the destruction of draft cards and established an important test for evaluating government regulation of symbolic speech under the First Amendment.
-
D.
Wong Sun v. United States
Wong Sun v. United States is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case that refined the exclusionary rule by establishing the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine and clarifying when evidence obtained after an illegal search or arrest must be suppressed.
-
E.
Washington v. Davis
Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: United States v. Wade Target entity description: United States v. Wade is a landmark 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case that established a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel during post-indictment police lineups.
-
A.
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state criminal prosecutions.
-
B.
Betts v. Brady
Betts v. Brady was a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held indigent defendants in state criminal cases were not automatically entitled to court-appointed counsel, a rule later overturned by Gideon v. Wainwright.
-
C.
United States v. O'Brien
United States v. O'Brien is a landmark 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a federal law banning the destruction of draft cards and established an important test for evaluating government regulation of symbolic speech under the First Amendment.
-
D.
Wong Sun v. United States
Wong Sun v. United States is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case that refined the exclusionary rule by establishing the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine and clarifying when evidence obtained after an illegal search or arrest must be suppressed.
-
E.
Washington v. Davis
Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (44)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
U.S. Supreme Court case
ⓘ
criminal procedure case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
criminal law
ⓘ
criminal procedure ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1966-12-12 ⓘ |
| citation | 388 U.S. 218 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Justice Hugo L. Black
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Justice William O. Douglas NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision | Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1967-06-12 ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Justice John M. Harlan II
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Justice Tom C. Clark NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 223 ⓘ |
| establishedPrinciple |
Post-indictment confrontations between the accused and witnesses for identification are critical stages of the prosecution.
ⓘ
The absence of counsel at a post-indictment lineup can violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. ⓘ The government bears the burden of showing that an in-court identification has an independent source when a prior lineup was conducted without counsel. ⓘ |
| fullName | United States v. Wade NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
A post-indictment lineup is a critical stage of the prosecution at which the accused is entitled to the assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
ⓘ
In-court identifications following a lineup conducted without counsel must be examined to determine whether they have an independent source or are tainted by the illegal lineup. ⓘ |
| impact |
Influenced police procedures for conducting lineups and other identification confrontations.
ⓘ
Significantly expanded the scope of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal prosecutions. ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Chief Justice Earl Warren
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Justice Abe Fortas NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Potter Stewart NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Thurgood Marshall NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice William J. Brennan Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| legalIssue |
post-indictment lineup
ⓘ
right to counsel ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Justice Byron R. White NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| page | 218 ⓘ |
| petitioner | United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Gilbert v. California
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Stovall v. Denno NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent | Billie Joe Wade NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| subsequentHistory | Remanded to determine whether in-court identifications had an independent source. ⓘ |
| topic |
eyewitness identification
ⓘ
right to counsel at critical stages ⓘ |
| volume | 388 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1967 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: United States v. Wade Description of subject: United States v. Wade is a landmark 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case that established a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel during post-indictment police lineups.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.