User:Cynthiaucsb/simmons vs. United States

Facts
Three men, Andrews, Garret, and Simmons, were suspects for the robbery of a bank in Chicago, Illinois on February 27, 1964. It didn't take long for the jury to conclude that Garrett and Simmons were guilty based on the evidence gathered by the FBI. Although Andrews was also a suspect there was not enough evidence to suggest Andrews had been part of the robbery, therefore he was found innocent. As the trial developed, issues quickly rose when Garrett made an unsuccessful motion to suppress which was then used against him and lead many to believe the trial had not been handled fairly.

Lawyers
For the petitioners:
 * Raymond J. Smith
 * John Powers Crowley
 * George F. Callaghan.

For the United States:
 * Solicitor General Griswald
 * Assistant Attorney General Vinson
 * Beatrice Rosenberg
 * Mervyn Hamburg.

About the Case
Simmons vs United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) January 15 – March 18, 1968

On February 27, 1964 around 1:45 pm, a robbery took place at a bank in Chicago where two unmasked men had been reported of the crime. Five witnesses, all bank employees, reported their written statements to the FBI. Garrett and Simmons were petitioners and another suspect, Andrews, were accused of the crime. That same day the FBI tracked down the vehicle that had been spotted at the scene, a 1960 model white Thunderbird which was found parked outside of Mrs. Mahon, Andrew's mother's house. The vehicle belonged to Mrs. Rey which that day she had lent to her brother William Andrews. The FBI investigated Mrs. Mahon's home where they then found two suitcases filled with items spotted at the scene, including a gun and money belonging to the bank. The case did not specify whether or not Mrs. Mahon allowed the FBI to come in to her house which many believe the evidence was illegally obtained. After gathering numerous photographs of the three suspects obtained by Andrew's sister, the FBI presented them to the witnesses and all assured Simmons as one of the robbers. Three of the five witnesses also claimed Garrett as the second robber. With this evidence the men were brought to court. After concluding that the suitcase belonged to Garrett, Garrett argued that the FBI had violated his Fourth Amendment Rightsby using his admittance statement that had taken place at the the pretrial. This was because Garrett had to make some type of admittance statement at the pretrial in order to meet the standing requirements in the Jones v United States, the court decided it was enough evidence to prove Garret was also the owner of the possessions in the suitcase, therefore guilty.

Result
Garett and Simmons were charged guilty of the robbery; however, Andrews was not because the jury decided there was not enough evidence to prove that he was part of the crime.

Issues about the trial

 * Garrett had accused the FBI of violating his Fourth Amendment Rights(also known as making a Fourth Amendment objection). However, in order for the amendment to grant its freedom, the victim must own or possess the belongings being taken from the scene. Garrett had to admit to somewhat owning the suitcase and the clothes found in it, but by admitting this it caused his motion to suppress to fail. Instead the jury concluded that the testimony only served as evidence toward the trial. During the trial Garrett's testimony was used from the suppression trial as evidence supporting the ownership of the suitcase and it's contents.
 * There is a rule adopted by the court where it states that the defendant making a motion to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment bases the testimony at the suppression trial cannot be used against the defendant as long as he/she does not make an objection.
 * It is believed the court wrongfully used Garrett's testimony from the suppression by going against their own rule.
 * However, the court's motive to use the testimony was based on the fact that they believed Garrett had voluntarily given the information about the suitcase and therefore saw no wrong in treating the testimony like any other document or form of evidence.


 * Simmons argued that the FBI altered the witnesses' claims by showing them photographs of the suspects prior to the trial, harming Simmons' stand in the case. The probability of wrongly identifying someone increases when the witnesses have only caught a glance at the suspects and do not get a clear view; however, because the witnesses were later shown random photographs of Andrews and Simmons without suggesting that Simmons could have been one the robbers at the scene, witnesses confirmed the man they specifically remembered was Simmons. Because the petitioners assumed the photographs had been presented to the witnesses the same day they had turned in written statements to the FBI, the petitioners were ordering for the photographs to be brought out in trial under the Jencks Act(18 U.S.C. 3500); however, the defense's request was denied because one, there were no witnesses to directly examine and two, the witnesses had already reported a written statement therefore when the photographs had been presented it was taken note of that the written reports were handled first and the distribution of the photographs were dealt with second concluding they were not part of the statements.

Similar Cases

 * Stovall v. Denno
 * Banks v Dretke
 * Swidler & Berlin v United States