Pretrial Identification: Difference between revisions
From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Background == | |||
== Key Cases == | |||
* United States | * United States | ||
** [[Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188 (1972)]] - In Neil v. Biggers, the US Supreme Court provided the defendant with a mechanism to challenge a pre-trial identification by requesting a hearing on the validity of the identification. The two-pronged test asks 1) whether the identification procedure was suggestive and 2) if it was suggestive, were there indicia of reliability such that the witness's testimony should still be admissible even if the procedure was suggestive. | ** [[Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188 (1972)]] - In Neil v. Biggers, the US Supreme Court provided the defendant with a mechanism to challenge a pre-trial identification by requesting a hearing on the validity of the identification. The two-pronged test asks 1) whether the identification procedure was suggestive and 2) if it was suggestive, were there indicia of reliability such that the witness's testimony should still be admissible even if the procedure was suggestive. | ||
Revision as of 09:24, 28 April 2010
Background
Key Cases
- United States
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188 (1972) - In Neil v. Biggers, the US Supreme Court provided the defendant with a mechanism to challenge a pre-trial identification by requesting a hearing on the validity of the identification. The two-pronged test asks 1) whether the identification procedure was suggestive and 2) if it was suggestive, were there indicia of reliability such that the witness's testimony should still be admissible even if the procedure was suggestive.
