Immunity; Eyewitness Identifications - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 12
About This Presentation
Title:

Immunity; Eyewitness Identifications

Description:

Protects witness from use of testimony in subsequent criminal prosecution ... Dog Scent Line-up. Admonitions. Right to counsel approach ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:67
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 13
Provided by: georgeb5
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Immunity; Eyewitness Identifications


1
Immunity Eyewitness Identifications
2
Immunity
  • Involves exercise of prosecutorial discretion
  • Protects witness from use of testimony in
    subsequent criminal prosecution
  • Use, derivative use, transactional immunity
  • Enables government to compel responses without
    violating Fifth Amendment
  • Perjury exception
  • Act of production immunity (US v. Hubbell)

3
Eyewitness Identifications
  • Have strong effect on juries
  • Notoriously unreliable (inherent and suggestivity
    problems)
  • Has led to constitutional protections

4
Approaches to Eyewitness ID Problems
  • Right to counsel
  • Due Process
  • Fourth Amendment
  • Fifth Amendment (rejected in Schmerber v. CA)

5
Types of ID Procedures
  • Live (corporeal) line up
  • Show up or cold show
  • Photographic spreads mug books
  • Voice line up
  • Sequential ID procedures
  • Double blind testing
  • Dog Scent Line-up
  • Admonitions

6
Right to counsel approach
  • Result of a post-indictment corporeal line up in
    absence of counsel is inadmissible so is
    subsequent in-court identification, unless
    prosecution can show independent basis for
    in-court ID by clear and convincing evidence (US
    v. Wade)
  • Factors include prior observation, discrepant
    description, ID of another, prior photo ID,
    failure to ID, elapse of time, etc.

7
Right to counsel contd
  • Does not apply to pre-indictment corporeal line
    up (Kirby v. IL)
  • Does not apply to photo spreads (US v. Ash)
  • Application relatively rare
  • Role of counsel?
  • Defense request for line up

8
The Due Process Approach
  • Identification is inadmissible if it is so
    unnecessarily suggestive as to create very
    substantial likelihood of misidentification
  • Later in court identification is also
    inadmissible if very substantial risk of
    irreparable misidentification
  • Both judged by totality of circumstances
  • High standard
  • Applies to any type of procedure, at any time

9
The Due Process Approach contd
  • Procedure must be suggestive
  • And unnecessary (Stovall v. Denno)
  • Even unnecessarily suggestive ID admissible if
    there are sufficient indices of reliability
    (Manson v. Brathwaite)
  • Factors include witness opportunity, degree of
    attention, accuracy of prior description,
    certainty, elapse of time, corrupting influences
    of suggestion

10
Alternatives to Exclusion
  • Corroboration requirement
  • Jury Instructions
  • Expert testimony

11
Problem 10-1
  • Did line up violate due process?
  • Suggestiveness D didnt understand commands
    slow reactions made him stand out.
  • Unnecessary did police take reasonable steps to
    assure fair procedure?
  • Reliability?

12
Next time
  • Right to counsel, pp. 819-850
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com