Constitutional Law · MBE-tested
Peary, aka Peay v. Connecticut
441 U.S. 966·Supreme Court of the United States·1979
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 78-1380.
Peary, aka Peay v. Connecticut.
[MAJORITY]
Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.
[DISSENT — Mr. Justice Marshall,]
Mr. Justice Marshall,
dissenting.
Petitioner challenges the admission into evidence of a partially masked mug shot. In my view, displaying to the jury a mug shot of a criminal defendant creates the same potential for prejudice as forcing him to stand trial in prison attire. See Estelle v. Williams, 425 U. S. 501, 503-506 (1976). Particularly since the Connecticut Supreme Court conceded that the mug shot of petitioner was of “limited probative value,” its use at trial raises substantial questions under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Accordingly, I would grant cer-tiorari and set the case for argument.