Pretrial Identification - Revision history

Ibjadmin at 11:17, 7 November 2016

2016-11-07T11:17:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:17, 7 November 2016
Line 51:		Line 51:

	==India==		==India==
	In India, a lineup is referred to as a test identification parade. A test identification parade has two primary objectives: to narrow down the possible subjects in an investigation, and to provide corroborating evidence for the witness’s later identification in court. <ref> http://~~jurisonline~~.~~in/2009~~/09/test-identification-parade-~~relevance~~-~~in-investigation-process-case-analysis~~/ </ref>		In India, a lineup is referred to as a test identification parade. A test identification parade has two primary objectives: to narrow down the possible subjects in an investigation, and to provide corroborating evidence for the witness’s later identification in court. <ref> http://www.lawkam.org/evidence/test-identification-parade-supreme-court/6060/ </ref>

	A test identification parade is not substantive evidence. The substantive evidence is the identification the witness will make in court. While a test identification parade is not required before a witness can testify, an identification not supported by one is almost without value unless the witness knows the defendant personally.		A test identification parade is not substantive evidence. The substantive evidence is the identification the witness will make in court. While a test identification parade is not required before a witness can testify, an identification not supported by one is almost without value unless the witness knows the defendant personally.

Durankar: /* England */

2010-12-09T10:44:14Z

England

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:44, 9 December 2010
Line 25:		Line 25:

	==England==		==England==
	In 1976, the court in ''R v. Turnbull'' established a new set of a factors to help ensure the reliability of eyewitness identifications. The factors to ~~consider when determining~~ the reliability of the identification that should be given to the jury, are:		In 1976, the court in ''R v. Turnbull'' established a new set of a factors to help ensure the reliability of eyewitness identifications. The factors to determine the reliability of the identification that should be given to the jury, are:

	<blockquote> (1) the visibility and lighting conditions at the time of		<blockquote> (1) the visibility and lighting conditions at the time of

Durankar: /* England */

2010-12-09T10:43:03Z

England

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:43, 9 December 2010
Line 25:		Line 25:

	==England==		==England==
	In 1976, the court in ''R v. Turnbull'' established a new set of a factors to help ensure the reliability of eyewitness identifications. The factors ~~which~~ should be ~~read~~ to the jury, are:		In 1976, the court in ''R v. Turnbull'' established a new set of a factors to help ensure the reliability of eyewitness identifications. The factors to consider when determining the reliability of the identification that should be given to the jury, are:

	<blockquote> (1) the visibility and lighting conditions at the time of		<blockquote> (1) the visibility and lighting conditions at the time of

Durankar: /* England */

2010-12-09T10:41:16Z

England

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:41, 9 December 2010
Line 38:		Line 38:
	of a suspect. <ref>Michael Bromby et. al, A CommonKADS Representation for a Knowledge-based System to Evaluate Eyewitness Identification, 17 Int'l Rev. of L. Computers & Technology 99, 101 (2003)</ref> </blockquote>		of a suspect. <ref>Michael Bromby et. al, A CommonKADS Representation for a Knowledge-based System to Evaluate Eyewitness Identification, 17 Int'l Rev. of L. Computers & Technology 99, 101 (2003)</ref> </blockquote>

	The ''Turnbull ~~Rules~~'' have also been adopted in other common law systems, including Ireland, Canada, and Australia. <ref>Michael Bromby et. al, A CommonKADS Representation for a Knowledge-based System to Evaluate Eyewitness Identification, 17 Int'l Rev. of L. Computers & Technology 99, 100 (2003)</ref>		The ''Turnbull'' rules have also been adopted in other common law systems, including Ireland, Canada, and Australia. <ref>Michael Bromby et. al, A CommonKADS Representation for a Knowledge-based System to Evaluate Eyewitness Identification, 17 Int'l Rev. of L. Computers & Technology 99, 100 (2003)</ref>

	==Germany==		==Germany==

Durankar at 10:40, 9 December 2010

2010-12-09T10:40:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:40, 9 December 2010
Line 21:		Line 21:


	The Biggers’ factors serve as a baseline for all pre-trial identification claims they are not exhaustive. Some states have openly questioned the usefulness of the factors and criticized the assumptions they are based on. <ref> Sate v. Long, 721 P.2d 483, 491 (Utah 1986) </ref> Utah, for instance, has established a more extensive set of factors:		The ''Biggers’'' factors serve as a baseline for all pre-trial identification claims they are not exhaustive. Some states have openly questioned the usefulness of the factors and criticized the assumptions they are based on. <ref> Sate v. Long, 721 P.2d 483, 491 (Utah 1986) </ref> Utah, for instance, has established a more extensive set of factors:
	<blockquote> (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the actor during the event; (2) the witness's degree of attention to the actor at the time of the event; (3) the witness's capacity to observe the event, including his or her physical and mental acuity; (4) whether the witness's identification was made spontaneously and remained consistent thereafter, or whether it was the product of suggestion; and (5) the nature of the event being observed and the likelihood that the witness would perceive, remember and relate it correctly. <ref> State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774, 781 (Utah 1991) (adopting the factors listed Long’s sample jury instructions)</ref></blockquote>		<blockquote> (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the actor during the event; (2) the witness's degree of attention to the actor at the time of the event; (3) the witness's capacity to observe the event, including his or her physical and mental acuity; (4) whether the witness's identification was made spontaneously and remained consistent thereafter, or whether it was the product of suggestion; and (5) the nature of the event being observed and the likelihood that the witness would perceive, remember and relate it correctly. <ref> State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774, 781 (Utah 1991) (adopting the factors listed Long’s sample jury instructions)</ref></blockquote>
	~~==India==~~
	In India, a lineup is referred to as a test identification parade. A test identification parade has two primary objectives: to narrow down the possible subjects in an investigation, and to provide corroborating evidence for the witness’s later identification in court. <ref> http://jurisonline.in/2009/09/test-identification-parade-relevance-in-investigation-process-case-analysis/ </ref>

	~~A test identification parade is not substantive evidence. The substantive evidence is~~ the ~~identification the witness will make~~ in ~~court~~. ~~While~~ a ~~test identification parade is not required before~~ a ~~witness can testify, an identification not supported by one is almost without value unless the witness knows~~ the ~~defendant personally~~.		==England==
			In 1976, the court in ''R v. Turnbull'' established a new set of a factors to help ensure the reliability of eyewitness identifications. The factors which should be read to the jury, are:

	~~Legally, an individual or a magistrate can conduct a test identification parade. In practice, however, a magistrate usually performs it. If~~ the ~~test identification parade is conducted~~ by the ~~police it will not be admissible in court under~~ the ~~provisions~~ of ~~section 162~~ of the ~~Code~~ of ~~Criminal Procedure~~. <ref> ~~http://lawyersclubindia~~.~~com/articles/Test~~-~~identification-Parade-724~~.~~asp~~ </ref>		<blockquote> (1) the visibility and lighting conditions at the time of
			the offence
			(2) the distance of the eyewitness from the perpetrator
			(3) the duration of observation of the crime by the eyewitness
			(4) whether the observation of the crime was impeded
			(5) whether the perpetrator was known to the eyewitness
			(6) the duration between the sighting of the offence and the reporting of the incident
			(7) the reasons the eyewitness recalls that the perpetrator was at the scene of the crime
			(8) the differences between the description of the perpetrator and the actual appearance
			of a suspect. <ref>Michael Bromby et. al, A CommonKADS Representation for a Knowledge-based System to Evaluate Eyewitness Identification, 17 Int'l Rev. of L. Computers & Technology 99, 101 (2003)</ref> </blockquote>

			The ''Turnbull Rules'' have also been adopted in other common law systems, including Ireland, Canada, and Australia. <ref>Michael Bromby et. al, A CommonKADS Representation for a Knowledge-based System to Evaluate Eyewitness Identification, 17 Int'l Rev. of L. Computers & Technology 99, 100 (2003)</ref>

	==Germany==		==Germany==
Line 39:		Line 48:

	The police do not have any particular requirements when carrying out an identification during a preliminary investigation. <ref> Craig M. Bradley, Criminal Procedure A Worldwide Study 214 (Carolina Academic Press 2d ed. 2007) </ref>		The police do not have any particular requirements when carrying out an identification during a preliminary investigation. <ref> Craig M. Bradley, Criminal Procedure A Worldwide Study 214 (Carolina Academic Press 2d ed. 2007) </ref>


			==India==
			In India, a lineup is referred to as a test identification parade. A test identification parade has two primary objectives: to narrow down the possible subjects in an investigation, and to provide corroborating evidence for the witness’s later identification in court. <ref> http://jurisonline.in/2009/09/test-identification-parade-relevance-in-investigation-process-case-analysis/ </ref>

			A test identification parade is not substantive evidence. The substantive evidence is the identification the witness will make in court. While a test identification parade is not required before a witness can testify, an identification not supported by one is almost without value unless the witness knows the defendant personally.

			Legally, an individual or a magistrate can conduct a test identification parade. In practice, however, a magistrate usually performs it. If the test identification parade is conducted by the police it will not be admissible in court under the provisions of section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. <ref> http://lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Test-identification-Parade-724.asp </ref>

	==China==		==China==
	China does not have laws governing identification procedures. <ref> Craig M. Bradley, Criminal Procedure A Worldwide Study 101 (Carolina Academic Press 2d ed. 2007) </ref>		China does not have laws governing identification procedures. <ref> Craig M. Bradley, Criminal Procedure A Worldwide Study 101 (Carolina Academic Press 2d ed. 2007) </ref>

Durankar: /* Background */

2010-12-09T10:04:26Z

Background

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:04, 9 December 2010
Line 3:		Line 3:
	A pre-trial identification may be crucial in establishing eyewitness testimony that a defendant committed a crime. Several types of pre-trial identification exist: showups, lineups, and photo arrays being the most common. While a key piece of evidence in a case, pre-trial identifications are unreliable pieces of evidence. Eyewitness identifications were used in 75% of the cases overturned by newly available DNA tests. Unfortunately, misidentifications will continue to happen and juries will continue to give them too much weight during deliberations because of the general public’s mistaken belief in their accuracy.		A pre-trial identification may be crucial in establishing eyewitness testimony that a defendant committed a crime. Several types of pre-trial identification exist: showups, lineups, and photo arrays being the most common. While a key piece of evidence in a case, pre-trial identifications are unreliable pieces of evidence. Eyewitness identifications were used in 75% of the cases overturned by newly available DNA tests. Unfortunately, misidentifications will continue to happen and juries will continue to give them too much weight during deliberations because of the general public’s mistaken belief in their accuracy.

	Numerous studies have shown just how unreliable pre-trial identifications can be. 20% of the time the witness selects someone other than the suspect. If the witness does not recognize the suspect or is not 100% certain, it is highly likely that they will guess because 90% of the public expect the suspect to be present, despite being told that he might not be. ~~Typically~~, the witness ~~statements~~ are ~~accurate for~~ sex, ~~hair color~~, ~~and distinguishing features~~. ~~While statements concerning age~~, height, ~~and specific race are not accurate~~.		Numerous studies have shown just how unreliable pre-trial identifications can be. 20% of the time the witness selects someone other than the suspect. If the witness does not recognize the suspect or is not 100% certain, it is highly likely that they will guess because 90% of the public expect the suspect to be present, despite being told that he might not be.

			Often, the witness only saw the suspect for a brief moment, and depending on the circumstances, additional factors may be present that further impact the reliability of the identification. Such factors include, but are not limited too:

			<blockquote>lighting conditions; the duration of the event; violence; the age, sex and race of the perpetrator; the length of time between the event and the identification and the acquisition of post-event information that may distort the memory. <ref>Connie Mayer, Due Process Challenges to Eyewitness Identification Based on Pretrial Photographic Arrays, Vol. 13 No. 3 Pace L. Rev. 815, 819 (1994)</ref></blockquote>

			Photo arrays also present a few unique reliability problems. For example, the witness may have trouble discerning the suspect's height and weight and the photograph might be old. <ref>Connie Mayer, Due Process Challenges to Eyewitness Identification Based on Pretrial Photographic Arrays, Vol. 13 No. 3 Pace L. Rev. 815, 820 (1994)</ref>

	Due to questions about the reliability of pre-trial identifications and possible coercion by the police, courts around the world have taken steps to ensure identifications are accurate and untainted.		Due to questions about the reliability of pre-trial identifications and possible coercion by the police, courts around the world have taken steps to ensure identifications are accurate and untainted.

	=Specific Country Examples=		=Specific Country Examples=
	==United States==		==United States==

Durankar at 09:39, 9 December 2010

2010-12-09T09:39:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:39, 9 December 2010
Line 3:		Line 3:
	A pre-trial identification may be crucial in establishing eyewitness testimony that a defendant committed a crime. Several types of pre-trial identification exist: showups, lineups, and photo arrays being the most common. While a key piece of evidence in a case, pre-trial identifications are unreliable pieces of evidence. Eyewitness identifications were used in 75% of the cases overturned by newly available DNA tests. Unfortunately, misidentifications will continue to happen and juries will continue to give them too much weight during deliberations because of the general public’s mistaken belief in their accuracy.		A pre-trial identification may be crucial in establishing eyewitness testimony that a defendant committed a crime. Several types of pre-trial identification exist: showups, lineups, and photo arrays being the most common. While a key piece of evidence in a case, pre-trial identifications are unreliable pieces of evidence. Eyewitness identifications were used in 75% of the cases overturned by newly available DNA tests. Unfortunately, misidentifications will continue to happen and juries will continue to give them too much weight during deliberations because of the general public’s mistaken belief in their accuracy.

	Numerous studies have shown just how unreliable pre-trial identifications can be. 20% of the time the witness selects someone other than the suspect. If the witness does not recognize the suspect or is not 100% certain, it is highly likely that they will guess because 90% of the public expect the suspect to be present, despite being told that he might not be.		Numerous studies have shown just how unreliable pre-trial identifications can be. 20% of the time the witness selects someone other than the suspect. If the witness does not recognize the suspect or is not 100% certain, it is highly likely that they will guess because 90% of the public expect the suspect to be present, despite being told that he might not be. Typically, the witness statements are accurate for sex, hair color, and distinguishing features. While statements concerning age, height, and specific race are not accurate.

	Due to questions about the reliability of pre-trial identifications and possible coercion by the police, courts around the world have taken steps to ensure identifications are accurate and untainted.		Due to questions about the reliability of pre-trial identifications and possible coercion by the police, courts around the world have taken steps to ensure identifications are accurate and untainted.

Durankar at 09:32, 9 December 2010

2010-12-09T09:32:00Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== Background ==
+=Background=
-A pre-trial identification may be crucial in establishing eyewitness testimony that a defendant committed a crime. Several types of pre-trial identification exist: [[Showups, Lineups, and Photo Arrays | showups, lineups, and photo arrays]] being the most common.
-== Key Cases ==
+Numerous studies have shown just how unreliable pre-trial identifications can be.  20% of the time the witness selects someone other than the suspect.  If the witness does not recognize the suspect or is not 100% certain, it is highly likely that they will  guess because 90% of the public expect the suspect to be present, despite being told that he might not be.
-The two-pronged test asks:
+The Biggers’ factors serve as a baseline for all pre-trial identification claims they are not exhaustive.  Some states have openly questioned the usefulness of the factors and criticized the assumptions they are based on. <ref> Sate v. Long, 721 P.2d 483, 491 (Utah 1986) </ref>  Utah, for instance, has established a more extensive set of factors:
-*1) whether the identification procedure was suggestive, and
+<blockquote> (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the actor during the event; (2) the witness's degree of attention to the actor at the time of the event; (3) the witness's capacity to observe the event, including his or her physical and mental acuity; (4) whether the witness's identification was made spontaneously and remained consistent thereafter, or whether it was the product of suggestion; and (5) the nature of the event being observed and the likelihood that the witness would perceive, remember and relate it correctly. <ref> State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774, 781 (Utah 1991) (adopting the factors listed Long’s sample jury instructions)</ref></blockquote>
-*2) if it was suggestive, whether there were indicia of reliability such that the witness's testimony should still be admissible even if the procedure was suggestive.
+==India==
 ----
 See [[Rights of the Accused]]

Ibjadmin at 07:21, 16 July 2010

2010-07-16T07:21:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:21, 16 July 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Background ==		== Background ==
	A pre-trial identification may be crucial in establishing eyewitness testimony that a defendant committed a crime. Several types of pre-trial identification exist: [[Showups, Lineups, and Photo Arrays \| ~~shosups~~, lineups, and photo arrays]] being the most common.		A pre-trial identification may be crucial in establishing eyewitness testimony that a defendant committed a crime. Several types of pre-trial identification exist: [[Showups, Lineups, and Photo Arrays \| showups, lineups, and photo arrays]] being the most common.

	== Key Cases ==		== Key Cases ==

Ibjadmin at 07:21, 16 July 2010

2010-07-16T07:21:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:21, 16 July 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Background ==		== Background ==
			A pre-trial identification may be crucial in establishing eyewitness testimony that a defendant committed a crime. Several types of pre-trial identification exist: [[Showups, Lineups, and Photo Arrays \| shosups, lineups, and photo arrays]] being the most common.

	== Key Cases ==		== Key Cases ==