Palmieri v. Florida

PETITIONER: Palmieri
RESPONDENT: Florida
LOCATION: Washington Monument Grounds

DOCKET NO.: 131
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1967-1969)
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 393 US 218 (1968)
ARGUED: Nov 20, 1968
DECIDED: Dec 09, 1968

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Palmieri v. Florida

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 20, 1968 in Palmieri v. Florida

Earl Warren:

No.131, Carmine Vincent Palmieri versus Florida.

Mr. Goldman.

Phillip Goldman:

Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.

This hearing is on writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida.

By way of background on February 6, 1965 and about 7:30 in the morning, a small grocery store in Dade County, Florida was robbed.

One of the prosecuting witnesses indicated that they had had about one to two minutes time to observe the robbery.

About a month later, March 1, 1965, the petitioner, Carmine Vincent Palmieri was arrested in his home at about 1:30 in the morning without a warrant and he was taken directly to the jail.

He was not taken before magistrate responsibility.

The next day of March 2, 1965, he was placed in a lineup at the jail without counsel where he was identified by Loy Dill, the manager of the restaurant -- the manager of the grocery store.

Again, he had not been taken before a magistrate.

At least one other lineup was held on March 8, 1965 some eight days later at which time the petitioner was again identified by the son of the manager of the grocery store, still, he had been taken before a magistrate.

For 10 days, the petitioner was held without taken before a magistrate, without being arraigned and without benefit of a counsel and not until petitioner had secured counsel and applied for a petition of writ of habeas corpus, was he charged with armed robbery.

At the trial of this cause the sole incriminating -- the sole evidence used against him was this lineup evidence, this illegal lineup evidence of the two witnesses.

Potter Stewart:

Are you -- is it your contention that he was arrested without probable cause?

Phillip Goldman:

Your Honor, I don't think there's any doubt when he was arrested without probable cause.

The Supreme Court of Florida, that question was not presented for the Supreme Court of Florida and that question is not spelled out in the petition.

Potter Stewart:

Does the record show what --

Phillip Goldman:

The record showed --

Potter Stewart:

By what information the arresting officers have at the time he was arrested, the time they arrested him?

Phillip Goldman:

That's specifically except that the only evidence they used at the trial was the illegal evidence which they gathered at a later time.

Potter Stewart:

Well, that's not my question.

Phillip Goldman:

No, sir they have -- the record does not speak as to what they have.

Potter Stewart:

I thought in reading the briefs and without calling them that the record did show that he was arrested only after the victim of the holdup had identified his picture -- as the picture of the man who had held him up.

Phillip Goldman:

Mr. Justice Stewart, if the Court please, this is an argument made by the respondent --

Potter Stewart:

Not in term of argument, I'm talking about the facts.

Phillip Goldman:

No, I say this is an argument advanced by that but the record does not reflect that the record reflects on page 15 that they took some photographs of two after the arrest to the prosecuting witness and that he identified one of the photographs.

No less than the record does it say that the person he identified was the petitioner Carmine Vincent Palmieri, no less than the record.

As a matter of fact is we're going to draw an inference from a solid record.

The record does show that the son was taken down -- the first person who was arrested when the son was taken down he couldn't identify him.

So, if we're going to make an inference with solid record it is that the photograph which was identified by the father was not that of the petitioner.