SJDC Admissibility of The Pretrial Identification Procedure Case Review
Description
Having Trouble Meeting Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on SJDC Admissibility of The Pretrial Identification Procedure Case Review completed on time. avoid delay and – ORDER NOW
How would you rule on the admissibility of the pretrial identification procedure in the following circumstances, and why?
a. Three of five photos shown to the witness were of the suspect. See People v. Citrino, 90 Cal. Rptr. 80 (Cal. App. 1970).
b. Only the suspect’s photo was clearly altered. See State v. Alexander, 503 P.2d 777 (Ariz. 1972).
c. Only one photo was shown in the identification of a rapist who told the victim he had been jailed for rape before, and where the victim had gotten a good look at the rapist. See Chaney v. State, 267 So.2d 65 (Fla. 1972).
d. Police conducted a lineup without counsel after the counsel left an order that the defendant not be interrogated without counsel present. See People v. LaClere, 564 N.E.2d 640 (N.Y. 1990).
e. A one-on-one confrontation was held months after the crime because police claimed they could not find other persons with similar physical characteristics, and where the victim had viewed the defendant for half an hour at the time of the crime. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, (1972).
f. In the course of an investigation police asked a suspect to come to the station house. The defendant was given Miranda warnings, did not clearly waive counsel, then was put in a lineup. See Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877 (1972).
