Gilbert v. California
E912662
Gilbert v. California is a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held a defendant’s post-indictment lineup identification without counsel present violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Gilbert v. California canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T11230700 — 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: Gilbert v. California Context triple: [Moore v. Illinois, relatedCase, Gilbert v. California]
-
A.
Giles v. California
Giles v. California is a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the Confrontation Clause by holding that a defendant forfeits the right to confront a witness only if the defendant intended to prevent that witness from testifying.
-
B.
Griffin v. California
Griffin v. California is a landmark 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that prosecutors and judges may not comment on a criminal defendant’s failure to testify, as this violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
-
C.
Edwards v. California
Edwards v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a California law restricting the bringing of indigent persons into the state, holding that such limits on interstate movement violated the Commerce Clause.
-
D.
Bridges v. California
Bridges v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded First Amendment protections by limiting the power of courts to punish out-of-court publications as contempt.
-
E.
Rochin v. California
Rochin v. California is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that held evidence obtained by methods that "shock the conscience," such as forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- 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: Gilbert v. California Target entity description: Gilbert v. California is a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held a defendant’s post-indictment lineup identification without counsel present violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
-
A.
Giles v. California
Giles v. California is a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the Confrontation Clause by holding that a defendant forfeits the right to confront a witness only if the defendant intended to prevent that witness from testifying.
-
B.
Griffin v. California
Griffin v. California is a landmark 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that prosecutors and judges may not comment on a criminal defendant’s failure to testify, as this violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
-
C.
Edwards v. California
Edwards v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a California law restricting the bringing of indigent persons into the state, holding that such limits on interstate movement violated the Commerce Clause.
-
D.
Bridges v. California
Bridges v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded First Amendment protections by limiting the power of courts to punish out-of-court publications as contempt.
-
E.
Rochin v. California
Rochin v. California is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that held evidence obtained by methods that "shock the conscience," such as forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (43)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Sixth Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| appliesTo | post-indictment lineups ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal law ⓘ criminal procedure ⓘ |
| argued |
1967-03-13
ⓘ
1967-03-14 ⓘ |
| citation | 388 U.S. 263 ⓘ |
| clarifiedDoctrine | scope of Sixth Amendment right to counsel ⓘ |
| 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 ⓘ |
| courtTerm | October Term 1966 ⓘ |
| decidedWith | United States v. Wade NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1967-06-12 ⓘ |
| defendant | Gilbert NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy |
Justice Hugo L. Black
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Justice John M. Harlan II NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Potter Stewart NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| fullCaseName | Gilbert v. California NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
A post-indictment pretrial lineup is a critical stage of the prosecution at which the accused is entitled to the assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
ⓘ
Admission of testimony about an out-of-court lineup identification conducted without counsel present violates the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. ⓘ In-court identifications following an unconstitutional lineup must be excluded unless the prosecution shows by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification has an independent source. ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Chief Justice Earl Warren
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Justice Abe Fortas NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Thurgood Marshall NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice William J. Brennan Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice William O. Douglas NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal ⓘ |
| languageOfDecision | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue | right to counsel at post-indictment lineup ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Justice Byron White NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| page | 263 ⓘ |
| precedentFor | right to counsel in identification procedures ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Stovall v. Denno
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
United States v. Wade NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| result | conviction partially reversed and remanded ⓘ |
| stateParty | California NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| 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: Gilbert v. California Description of subject: Gilbert v. California is a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held a defendant’s post-indictment lineup identification without counsel present violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.