LDF Seeks Clear Law on Police Identification of Persons Charged with Crime

    Pretfon. Francis E. Rivers 

fin PRESS RELEASE Director-Counsel 

egal efense und 
Jack Greenberg 

Director bli tior 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. sess ee 

10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 * JUdson 6-8397 FOR RELEASE NIGHT NUMBER 212-749-8487 

: WEDNESDAY 
¢e 

DECEMBER 13, 1967 

LDF SEEKS CLEAR LAW ON 

POLICE IDENTIFICATION OF 
| 

PERSONS CHARGED WITH CRIME 
| 

NATIONAL NEWS 
ANGLE: The U.S. Supreme Court is again considering problem 

of physical identity of a person charged with a 

crime. In this case, LDF attorneys hope for clari- 

fication of high court's landmark ruling of 

June 12, 1967 (u.s. v. Wade, Gilbert v. California, 

and Stovall v. Denno) granting an attorney and other 

safeguards to persons subject to identification. 

QUESTION PRESENTED:Did the insistence by the police that a 16-year-old 

boy speak words spoken by a rapist 7 months earlier 

violate the Constitution when the police failed to 

provide an attorney, or hold a line-up, or take 

steps to assure an objective, impartial identifica- 

tion? 

WASHINGTON---The U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument today asking re- 

versal of the conviction of a Negro youth facing a 20-year rape sen- 

tence based on repetition of five words uttered seven months earlier. 

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), which filed 

a brief for the petitioner, will be represented by Assistant Counsel 

Michael Meltsner. 

The petitioner, 16-year-old Archie Nathaniel Biggers of Nashville, 

Tennessee, was arrested on August 17, 1965 and allegedly identified by 

a woman as the man who attempted to rape her the night before. 

Yet, young Biggers was never tried on this charge. 
| 

Later, the same day, another woman, Mrs. Margaret Beamer, was brought 

to police headquarters to "look at a suspect." 

Mrs. Beamer had been raped on the night of January 22, 1965--seven 

months earlier. She had been accosted in a dark hallway and taken to 

a nearby patch of woods where the crime took place. 

Mrs. Beamer saw young Biggers at the police station on August 17. He 

was guarded by five officers. 

Neither the youth's parents nor relatives were present, nor had they 

been notified of what was taking place. The boy had no lawyer. No 

line-up or alternative procedure was utilized by police. 

The LDF attorneys argue in their brief that the police station identi- 

fication without a line-up was unduly suggestive. 

They further argue that, if Biggers had had a lawyer present, he 

could have demanded a line-up before Mrs. Beamer placed herself in the 

position of making a positive identification. 

The presence of an attorney also might have stopped the police from 

making Biggers say: "Shut up, or I'll kill you." 

events which lasted from 15 to 30 minutes at most," Mrs, Beamer identi- ee "From the sound of these few words...spoken seven months earlier during 

mai fied young Biggers as “the man who had raped her," the LDF asserts. 

Other LDF attorneys handling the case include Director-Counsel Jack 

Greenberg of New York City; Anthony G. Amsterdam of Philadelphia; 

Avon N. Williams and Z. Alexander of Nashville. John P. Howland of 

New York City is of counsel. 

-30-