Witness Challenges

Question 1

Rock v. Arkansas (1987) *

Answer 1

Blanket bans on testimony derived from hypnosis are unconstitutional.

Question 2

Neil v. Biggers (1972)

Answer 2

Upheld constitutionality of “show up” procedures – while suggestive, the totality of the circumstances prevented this evidence from being thrown out

Biggers criteria:
Whether witness saw suspect, attention they paid, accuracy of description, confidence in ID when confronting the suspect, and length of time between witnessing and confronting.

Question 3

State v. Hurd (1980)

Answer 3

Outlines considerations for determining if hypnosis is suggestive, and found that it does not meet Frye standards

Question 4

People v. Shirley (1982)

Answer 4

A witness CANNOT be allowed to testify after they have undergone hypnosis for the purpose of restoring their memory of the events in issue.

Question 5

White v. Illinois (1992)

Answer 5

The Confrontation Clause does NOT require a declarant be produced at trial or found unavailable before out-of-court statements can be made admissible into evidence.

Aka.: If the statements are “firmly-rooted” in a hearsay exception, they do not violate the clause

Question 6

State v. Henderson (2011)

Answer 6

Holding a jury instruction on cross-racial identification SHOULD be given if cross-racial identification is in issue at trial.

Question 7

Perry v. New Hampshire (2012)

Answer 7

The Due Process protections against unreliable identification DO NOT apply to all identifications made under suggestive circumstances.

Question 8

Crawford v. Washington (2004)

Answer 8

Testimonial statements made by witnesses who are out-of-court (and thus not available for cross-examination) are unconstitutional under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment—unless witnesses are truly unavailable (e.g., dead) or defendants had the opportunity to cross-examine them.