IDs Flashcards
Does a post-indictment witness identification of a criminal suspect, conducted without notice to and in the absence of the suspect’s counsel, violate the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel?
Yes. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is intended to afford the accused protection against state action during any critical stage of criminal proceedings, formal or otherwise, at which the right to a fair trial might be jeopardized by the lack of legal representation. A post-indictment witness identification is a critical stage of the proceedings. Witness identifications are notoriously unreliable, and conducting a lineup without the oversight of counsel allows the opportunity for suggestion to influence witness identification.
If a criminal defendant has been identified by witnesses at an illegal lineup and the defendant is later identified in court by the same witnesses, are the in-court identifications admissible absent a determination that they were not tainted by the illegal lineup?
No. If police conduct a lineup in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights, then eyewitness identifications of the defendant at the lineup are inadmissible in court. Before admitting the in-court testimonies of those same witnesses identifying the defendant into evidence, the court must verify that the witnesses’ identifications of the defendant stem from a different source than the illegal lineup. Absent this determination, in-court identifications are presumed to be tainted by the illegal lineup.
Under the Sixth Amendment, may police conduct an identification outside the presence of counsel before a suspect has been charged?
Yes. the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach until criminal prosecution has formally begun, signified by an arraignment or other judicial hearing. This marks the official beginning of the adversarial process and the activation of the Sixth Amendment. The Court will not extend the amendment’s protections to events that occur before the initiation of formal proceedings. Abuses that occur during pre-arraignment identifications will be evaluated under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Under the Sixth Amendment, may police conduct a post-indictment photo lineup outside the presence of counsel?
yes. The risks discussed in Wade are not present in photo lineups. The fact that lineup procedures are not scientifically precise or easy to recreate at trial raises the question of whether the disadvantage to the defendant can be remedied by aid of counsel at trial. There is no trial-like confrontation in a photo lineup, and extending the right to counsel in this way would go far beyond the historical understanding of the right. Moreover, the right does not extend to pretrial witness interviews that are part of the prosecution’s trial preparations
If the prosecutor’s ethics do not protect the defendant’s rights, any misconduct is reviewable under the Due Process Clause.
Does an in-person confrontation between a single suspect and an eyewitness for identification purposes violate the suspect’s due process rights if the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that the confrontation was necessary?
No. An eyewitness-identification procedure may violate a defendant’s due process rights if the procedure is unnecessarily suggestive and could lead to an irreparable mistaken identification. Courts must examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a due-process violation occurred.
Does a lineup violate the Due Process Clause if, on the facts of the case, the procedure was not so unfairly suggestive as to make an irreparable misidentification highly likely?
No. Under the Due Process Clause, a lineup will only be deemed unconstitutional if the procedure used was so unfairly suggestive as to create a significant likelihood of an irreparable mistaken identification. Under Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967), any assertion that a particular lineup procedure violates due process must be evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances.
Do suggestive lineup procedures violate the Due Process Clause?
Yes. Assessed in light of all relevant facts and circumstances, lineup procedures found to be highly suggestive and likely to result in irreparable misidentifications violate the Due Process Clause.
Does the Due Process Clause require that a suggestive and unnecessary pretrial identification be automatically excluded from evidence, without considering the reliability of the identification?
No. When a defendant makes a due process claim regarding a pre-trial, suggestive and unnecessary witness identification, the identification is not automatically excluded from trial. Instead, a totality of the circumstances approach is used to determine if the identification is reliable. If so, the identification is admissible. The factors to consider when determining reliability were outlined in a previous case, Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972). The factors include:
(1) the opportunity of the witness to view the defendant,
(2) the witness’ degree of attention,
(3) the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal,
(4) the witness’ level of certainty with his identification, and
(5) the time between the crime and the identification.
Must eyewitness-identification evidence be suppressed if the identification was made as a result of a police procedure that was unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable misidentification?
Yes. Under existing federal law, courts apply a two-part reliability test to decide whether eyewitness-identification evidence should be admitted at trial. The first inquiry considers whether the identification procedures employed by law enforcement were unnecessarily suggestive. If the court finds that the identification procedures were unnecessarily suggestive, then the court must balance several specific factors to determine whether the identification was reliable enough to satisfy due process.
Does a suggestive identification procedure violate due process if the police are not involved in creating the suggestive circumstances?
No. When determining whether a witness’s identification is impermissibly suggestive a court should review the totality of the circumstance in each case to decide whether improper conduct created a “substantial likelihood of misidentification.” Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1972).
