Chapter 14-Lineups and other pretrail identification procedures Flashcards Preview

Briefs of leading Cases in Law Enforcement > Chapter 14-Lineups and other pretrail identification procedures > Flashcards

Flashcards in Chapter 14-Lineups and other pretrail identification procedures Deck (13)
Loading flashcards...

police generally use three methods in witness identification of suspects

1. lineups
2. showup
3. photographic identifications


four constitutional rights usually invoked by suspects in identification proceedings

1. privilege against self-incrimination
2. right to lawyer
3. right to due process
4. protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.


only two have held by Court to apply in pretrial identification procedures

right to counsel
right to due process


Leading cases

United States v Wade
Kirby v Illinois


an accused who has been formally charged with a crime has the right to have a lawyer present during a police lineup

United STates v Wade
id in this case was excluded as evidence, because Wade's attorney was not present during post-indictment lineup. This lineup is considered the "critical stage of the proceedings"


lineups that are so suggestive as to make the resulting identification virtually inevitable violate a suspects constitutional right to due process

Foster v CAlifornia, 1969
Foster placed in lineup with two other men, Foster was wearing similiar jacket to the one worn by the robber.


a Fair lineup is

one that guarentees no bias against the suspect


There is no right to counsel at police lineups or identification procedures if the suspect has not been formally charged with a crime

Kirby v Illinois, 1972
This case was decided 5 yrs after United STates v Wade. Court reasoned that a post-indictment lineup is a "critical stage of proceedings, pre-indictment lineup is not.


any person may be required against his will to appear before a grand jury or to give a voice exemplar without violating the 4th or 5th Amend

United STates v Dionisio, 1973
Dionisio refused to provide the voice exemplars and was found in civil contempt and was jailed until he complied or for 18 mths.
Any person may be required to appear before a grand jury. Suspects may be required by police to give voice exemplars. none violate their 4th or 5th


voice exemplars are considered to be a form of

physical evidence. 5th Amend prohibition against self-incrimination applies only to testimonial evidence, not physical


admission of testimony concerning a suggestive and unnecessary identification procedure does not violate due process as long as the identification possesses sufficient aspects of reliability

Manson v Brathwaite, 1977
This case was good based on the reliability of the identification . Officer suspected who seller was based on physical description given by undercover officer. officer found Brathwaites photo from records division and showed it to the undercover officer who id Brathwaite as person selling drugs.


factors for court to consider for reliability were stated in Neil v Biggers

1. opportunity for witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime
2. witness degree of attention
3. accuracy of any prior description of criminal
4. level of certainty demonstrated at identification procedure
5. time between the crime and identificaiton procedure.


pre-trial identification is illegal if the arrest is illegal; however, an in court identification is admissible if victim recollection are independent of police misconduct.

United STates v Crews, 1980
this case introduced the doctrine of "independent untainted source", an exception to the exclusionary rule. Crews was arrested without probable cause. Victim identified Crews in a in-court identification.