Which Legal Standard Relates to Identification Procedures

United States v. Wade and Gilbert v. California created the Wade-Gilbert rule. Under this rule, the Supreme Court held that post-indictment statements were a critical stage in the prosecution and that the defendant was entitled to have his or her counsel present at critical times under the Sixth Amendment. If the accused is deprived of his right to counsel on the post-charge lists, the list is inadmissible. Many later cases amended and refined the Wade-Gilbert Rule, such as Kirby v. Illinois, which concluded that Wade-Gilbert did not create a right to counsel for the pre-indictment lists, and United States v. Ash, who held attorney rights under the Sixth Amendment, does not apply to post-indictment photo listings. In 2011, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in State v. Larry R. See pp.

79-80. On-line queues are used in some jurisdictions, but they are not the predominant method used by law enforcement.16 The use of these police identification procedures is limited for a variety of reasons. First, in certain circumstances, a lawyer may be required for a list, making it less attractive to police and prosecutors. Second, it can be difficult to obtain appropriate fillers in smaller jurisdictions (e.g., those with 41State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218, 234 (Conn. 2012). Prior to this decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court had long held that “the reliability of witness identification depends on the knowledge of the jury, and expert testimony would generally not assist the jury in deciding the issue” (State v. Kemp, supra 199 Conn. at 473, 477), and that the factors affecting eyewitness memory “are nothing outside the common experience of mankind” (State v.

McClendon, supra 248 Conn. at 572, 586). Several state supreme courts have amended or supplemented Manson v. Federal Court. Brathwaite`s rule is to focus more on the effects of suggestion, to highlight certain factors in certain circumstances,11 or to focus specifically on presentation identifications.12 New Jersey and Oregon now have the Manson v. Brathwaite with separate legal standards governing eyewitness identification. You must verify the credibility of each identifying witness in the same way as any other witness, verify that it is truthful, and 57State v. Ledbetter, 275 Conn. 534, 579–580 (2005) (The investigation reads in part: “The person who conducted the trial informed the witness that a suspect was present at the trial or did not warn him that the author could or could not participate in the proceedings. Psychological studies have shown that informing a witness that a suspect is present in an identification procedure, or not warning the witness that the perpetrator may or may not participate in the proceedings, increases the likelihood that the witness will choose one of the persons at trial, even if the perpetrator is not present. Therefore, such behaviour on the part of the procedural administrator tends to increase the likelihood of misidentification. The photo chart is the most common method of identification ordered by police in the United States.5 A photo chart consists of six to nine photos shown to a witness.

An officer can create a series by selecting photos of people suspected of resembling the perpetrator.6 Officers can then show the photos individually to the witness and ask if they recognize each one. This method is called the sequential method. Officers can also create photo boards by cutting out six square holes in a folder and pasting the photos on the back of the folder so that the faces of fillers (non-suspects) and suspects are displayed together. When such photos are presented simultaneously as a two-by-three matrix, this type of painting is called a “six-pack”. If, as in this case, the photos are displayed together, then this is called a simultaneous procedure. Some courts that limit expert witness testimony have found that jury instructions regarding the fallibility of eyewitness identifications are an acceptable substitute for expert testimony.49 At the end of a criminal case, evidence for eyewitness identification continues to be heard primarily through the flexible two-part test Manson v. Brathwaite Due Process.7 This is 13State v. Henderson, 27 A.3d 872 (n.y. 2011). The Henderson Report described the criticisms of Manson v. The Brathwaite test, including this proposition, may even affect the apparent “reliability” of the identification.

Id., pp. 877–78. For examples of scholarly criticism of Manson v. Brathwaite-Test im Lichte wissenschaftlicher Forschung, siehe z. B. G. L. Wells und D. S.

Quinlivan, « Suggestive Eyewitness Identification Procedures and the Supreme Court’s Reliability Test in Light of Eyewitness Science: 30 Years Later », Law and Human Behavior 33(1): 1, 16 (février 2009); T. P. O’Toole et G. Shay, « Manson v. Brathwaite Revisited: Towards a New Rule of Decision for Due Process Challenges to Eyewitness Identification Procedures », Valparaiso University Law Review 41(1): 109 (2006). Staatliche Gesetze besagen in der Regel, dass ein Prozessrichter die Nichtbeachtung der vorgeschriebenen Verfahren als Faktor bei der Beurteilung der Zulässigkeit und der Information der Jury berücksichtigen kann.