Appeal of Maguire
| Decision Date | 08 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1496,77-1496 |
| Citation | 571 F.2d 675 |
| Parties | Appeal of Lawrence F. MAGUIRE (Grand Jury Proceedings). . Heard |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
William J. Carr, Boston, Mass. by appointment of the court, for appellant.
Paul Healy, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Boston, Mass., with whom Edward F. Harrington, U. S. Atty., and Robert B. Collings, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Criminal Division, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellee.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, CAMPBELL and BOWNES, Circuit Judges.
The issue here is whether a district court can order such physical force as is reasonably necessary to compel a defiant grand jury witness to appear in a lineup and submit to fingerprinting.
The appellant, Lawrence F. Maguire, was asked by a grand jury investigating an armed robbery if he would voluntarily appear in a lineup and submit to fingerprinting. He responded that he would not. The grand jury then voted to order him to appear in a lineup and be fingerprinted. Maguire was recalled as a witness and, after being formally ordered by the deputy foreman to appear in a lineup and submit to fingerprinting, refused on grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
The United States Attorney then filed a petition with the district court for an order requiring Maguire to comply. After a hearing at which Maguire and his counsel were present, the district court ordered him
to comply with the directive of the United States Grand Jury to appear in a lineup and to submit to complete fingerprinting at a time and place convenient to the United States Attorney, the witness, and his counsel.
At the hearing, the district court was informed that Maguire is currently serving an eight to ten year sentence at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution in Walpole.
Subsequent to the hearing, Maguire, through his counsel, informed the United States Attorney that he would not appear in any lineup or allow himself to be fingerprinted. The United States Attorney then filed a motion for an amended order authorizing the use of force to compel the ends sought. After another hearing at which Maguire and his counsel were present, the district court issued the following order:
It Is Further Ordered that should Lawrence F. Maguire refuse to attend or to stand in a lineup or refuse to submit to complete fingerprinting, as ordered herein, Deputy United States Marshals and Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation are authorized to employ such reasonable force as is reasonably necessary to compel him to attend the lineup, and stand in a lineup, and to submit to complete fingerprinting. To such end, if Lawrence F. Maguire passively resists, he may be bodily transported to the site of the lineup and/or physically supported during the lineup. If Lawrence F. Maguire physically resists, the above officers may use handcuffs, handcuff belts, leg irons, and such interconnecting chains to such restraining devices as are reasonably necessary to assure Lawrence F. Maguire's presence and participation in the lineup as specified above, and to secure his complete fingerprints.
It is clear that a federal court has the power to compel persons to appear before a grand jury and testify. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 345, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974). It is also well established that there is a distinction between being compelled to provide testimonial evidence against oneself and being forced to show one's body, wear certain items of clothing or even disgorge the contents of one's stomach. In the former situation, the Fifth Amendment is a barrier. In the latter, it has been long and consistently held that no constitutional immunity is implicated. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 763-764, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245, 252-253, 31 S.Ct. 2, 54 L.Ed. 1021 (1910). But cf. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 173, 72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952), for possible Fourth Amendment problems.
In In re Melvin, 550 F.2d 674, 677 (1st Cir. 1977), we concluded " that subject to the district court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mena
...Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2011) ¶¶ 15.85–15.86, p. 15–44.) 11. As to the First Circuit, in Appeal of Maguire (1st Cir.1978) 571 F.2d 675, the federal appeals court considered a defendant's refusal to participate in a lineup, rather than a defendant's request for a lineup. The cour......
-
People v. Yates
...its sufficiency because of his own misbehavior. People v. Broadnax (1974), 23 Ill.App.3d 68, 73, 318 N.E.2d 499; see Appeal of Maguire (1st Cir.1978), 571 F.2d 675, cert. denied (1978), 436 U.S. 911, 98 S.Ct. 2249, 56 L.Ed.2d Defendant also contends that the witnesses' prior description of ......
-
State v. Nece
...of testimonial compulsion upon or enforced communication by the accused" there is no self-incrimination. [at 1345-56] In Appeal of Maguire, 571 F.2d 675 (1 Cir.1978), the court approved of the admission of evidence obtained through a compelled line-up appearance and the taking of fingerprin......
-
U.S. v. Thomann
...218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); Schmerber v. California,384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1965); Appeal of Maguire, 571 F.2d 675 (1st Cir. 1978), Cert. denied, 436 U.S. 911, 98 S.Ct. 2249, 56 L.Ed.2d While identification evidence does not come within the protection of......