Legal Opinion

People v. Hickman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 20, 2004No. Docket 122548PublishedCited by 70 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCorrigan, C. J.

In this case, we must determine when the right to counsel attaches to corporeal identifications. We adopt the analysis of Moore v Illinois, 434 US 220; 98 S Ct 458; 54 L Ed 2d 424 (1977), and hold that the right to counsel attaches only to corporeal identifications conducted at or after the initiation of adversarial judicial criminal proceedings. To the extent that People v Anderson, 389 Mich 155; 205 NW2d 461 (1973), goes beyond the constitutional text and extends the right to counsel to a time before the initiation of *604adversarial criminal proceedings, it is overruled. The Court of Appeals…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Gilbert v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Kirby v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. Moore v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. Robinson v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 2000

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by70 opinions

  1. McCORMICK v. CARRIERMichigan Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Lansing Schools Education Ass'n v. Lansing Board of EducationMichigan Supreme Court · 2010
  3. People v. WilliamsMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
  4. City of Grosse Pointe Park v. Michigan Municipal Liability & Property PoolMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
  5. People v. PipesMichigan Supreme Court · 2006

65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API