Lippman, CP 3e Chapter 9 PowerPoint

Chapter 9
Eyewitness and Scientific Identification

Wrongful Convictions
and Eyewitness Identification
 Perception
 frightened and overwhelmed victims
 Memory
 memories fade and change with the passage of time
 the power of suggestion
 Identifications
 retrieval
 selection
 selectiveness
 closure Lippman, Criminal Procedure 3e
© 2016 SAGE Publications, Inc.
The Identification Process
 Three goals:
 Eliminate police influence
 Limit the pressure on the victim or

eyewitness
 Increase accuracy
Lippman, Criminal Procedure 3e

Identification
 Identification protections
 Blind administration
 Double blind
 Instructions
 Single eyewitness
 Confidence
 Sequential presentation

Sixth Amendment
and Eyewitness Identifications
 United States v. Wade
 suspects in a lineup or showup must be given the
opportunity for counsel
 right to counsel applies at all critical stages of a
criminal proceeding
 “suggestive procedures”
 Gilbert v. California: clarified and affirmed Wade
 Wade–Gilbert rule

Sixth Amendment and Critical Stages of
Criminal Prosecution
 Right to an attorney applies at critical stages

of a criminal proceeding
 Critical stages includes those in which failure to
provide an attorney pay prevent a defendant from
obtaining a fair trial

Sixth Amendment
and Prearraignment Identifications
 Kirby v. Illinois
 a showup following arrest but before the initiation of adversary
criminal proceedings is not a critical stage of criminal
prosecution
 two justifications
 -pre-indictment efficiency
 -post-indictment (prosecution) need for counsel
 Moore v. Illinois: affirmed Kirby

Legal Equations

Legal Equations

Legal Equation

Sixth Amendment
and Photographic Displays
 United States v. Ash

 a postindictment photographic display is not a critical stage of
the prosecution
 during a photographic display, the accused is not present and
has no need for a lawyer’s assistance
 the attorney is able to guard against suggestiveness by
inspecting the size and format of the photographs and then has
the opportunity to point out any bias to the jury
 corporeal vs. noncorporeal identification

Legal Equation

Due Process Test
 Stovall v. Denno: suspects during the preindictment

phase are protected by the Due Process Clauses of
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments against
identification procedures that create a likelihood
that an innocent individual will be misidentified
 Applies to lineups, showups, and photographic

displays, whether preindictment or postindictment

Legal Equation

Suggestiveness, Reliability and Totality
 Manson v. Brathwaite
 a single photo identification is so suggestive that it runs an
unreasonable risk of suggestiveness and bias
 the fact that a procedure is suggestive does not mean that the
identification is inaccurate and should be automatically
excluded from evidence
 totality-of-the-circumstances test
 Neil v. Biggers: application of the Brathwaite test

State Laws on Identifications
 Massachusetts Supreme Court and the New York Court of

Appeals; the due process clauses of their state constitutions
require the automatic exclusion of unduly suggestive
identifications from evidence, however reliable
 Wisconsin Supreme Court: prohibits showups unless the police

lacked probable cause for an arrest or the showup was
necessitated by an emergency situation
 Georgia Supreme Court: juries should not consider the

confidence that a witness expresses in his or her identification in
evaluating the reliability of an in-court identification

Scientific Identification
 Frye v. United States: asks whether a scientific technique or

approach is “sufficiently established to have gained general
acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs”
 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical: asks a judge to study

the research and views of experts and to reach his or her own
conclusion as to whether a scientific technique will assist the
“trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
issue”
 In most cases, either approaches will lead to the same result

DNA Evidence
 Applications of DNA in the criminal
process
 used to connect an individual or individuals to
various criminal acts
 includes or excludes an individual as a suspect
 may establish guilt or innocence at trial
 Concerns with viewing DNA as infallible

DNA (cont.)
 Admissibility of DNA evidence
 DNA was first used in criminal cases in 1986
 now considered admissible by virtually every state and federal
court
 House v. Bell
 District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne
 DNA databases
 United States v. Kincade, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
 Exonerating the innocent

Polygraph Evidence
 Measures an individual’s physiological responses to questions
asked by a trained examiner
 Not generally considered admissible into evidence
 Not viewed as generally accepted by the scientific community
 Has not been established as reliable by federal courts
 United States v. Scheffer: affirmed the constitutionality of the

prohibition on the introduction of polygraph evidence at military
courts martial
 New Mexico Lippman, Criminal Procedure 3e


Lippman, CP 3e Chapter 9 PowerPoint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lippman, CP 3e Chapter 9 PowerPoint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lippman, CP 3e Chapter 9 PowerPoint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 9

Eyewitness and Scientific Identification

 Limit the pressure on the victim or

Lippman, Criminal Procedure 3e

Lippman, Criminal Procedure 3e

 Gilbert v. California: clarified and affirmed Wade

Lippman, Criminal Procedure 3e

 Right to an attorney applies at critical stages

Lippman, Criminal Procedure 3e

 Moore v. Illinois: affirmed Kirby

Lippman, Criminal Procedure 3e

Lippman, Criminal Procedure 3e

Lippman, Criminal Procedure 3e

 United States v. Ash

Lippman, Criminal Procedure 3e

Lippman, Criminal Procedure 3e

 Stovall v. Denno: suspects during the preindictment

 Applies to lineups, showups, and photographic

Lippman, Criminal Procedure 3e

Lippman, Criminal Procedure 3e

 Neil v. Biggers: application of the Brathwaite test

Lippman, Criminal Procedure 3e

 Massachusetts Supreme Court and the New York Court of

 Wisconsin Supreme Court: prohibits showups unless the police

 Georgia Supreme Court: juries should not consider the

Lippman, Criminal Procedure 3e

 Frye v. United States: asks whether a scientific technique or

 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical: asks a judge to study

 In most cases, either approaches will lead to the same result

Lippman, Criminal Procedure 3e

 Concerns with viewing DNA as infallible

Lippman, Criminal Procedure 3e

 United States v. Kincade, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

 Exonerating the innocent

 Not generally considered admissible into evidence

 Not viewed as generally accepted by the scientific community

 Has not been established as reliable by federal courts

 United States v. Scheffer: affirmed the constitutionality of the

 New Mexico Lippman, Criminal Procedure 3e

You might also like