Read each paragraph and give me your opinion do you agree do you disagree with those 2 paragraphs one for each part and if you agree or disagree why or why cj
1.In the case of Neil vs Biggers, Archie Biggers was convicted of rape due to the delayed identification by Ms. Neil in a “show up” where he was the only one there in the line up to be identified. Bias was also added into the mix when he was asked to say phrases that the attacker said on the night of the rape. Seeing he was the only one and he said what she heard that night she concluded that he was the perpetrator. In doing this she only had one choice, no others to choose from in a line up. Biggers appealed the conviction and it was overturned at the U.S. Court of Appeals stating the “show up” procedure was too suggestive and it violated due process. The case I chose was Perry vs New Hampshire. In this case a male was breaking into cars in a parking lot outside of an apartment building. The Police responded and asked an eyewitness who the perpetrator was and she pointed out the window of her apartment to a man standing next to a Police Officer. This man was Berion Perry. He was picked up after this statement from the eye witness. Perry moved to suppress the eye witness statement as it violated due process. His motion was denied by the court due to the Due Process Clause does not require a preliminary judicial inquiry into the reliability of an eyewitness identification when the identification was not procured under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances arranged by law enforcement. Perry also tried to use the reliability of the eyewitness and called that into question. In this case the defense cross examined the eyewitness, which is a part of due process, and was unable to find that she was unreliable. The Supreme Court held the conviction and he was charged. The impact of this case shows that when the eyewitness statements are taken correctly and due process was followed that the case was fair and just and the defense was allowed to cross examine the eyewitness. So Perry exercised his rights and therefore the case was determined to be fair and didn’t violate any of his rights to due process afforded by the 6th amendment. We should be able to afford the best possible scenario and ensure fairness in identification by providing the opportunity for the eyewitness to provide the best description of the suspect and be afforded the opportunity to pick the person out of a line-up. We as law enforcement must ask questions. We must ensure that they got a good look at the subject, determine the accuracy and validity of the statement, unsure the witness wasn’t under duress while giving the statement, and ensure as much detail as possible. Time is also a factor. We must ensure it is timely and as close to the time of the crime as possible.
Bottom of Form
2.As Rolando Carmen describes in “Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice, 9th Edition” a showup is a one-on-one confrontation between a suspect and a witness or victim to a crime, this usually occurs within a short time after the crime was committed under circumstances that would make a line up impractical or impossible (2014, pp. 305). In this case over a seven-month period, the victim looked at pictures lineups and other showups but did identify a suspect. It was not until the police called her to come to the station to view a suspect who was in the station, on an unrelated charge, that a show up was done. In addition to the showup they asked him to say a phrase that was spoken to her during the assault and she was sure that was her attacker. The major point in this case is was the “showup” too suggestive for identification. The police could not find people to put in the lineup that matched the description the victim gave which then made it difficult for them to do one. Not only that there was very large time lapse between the actual assault and the time she identified her attacker, seven months In the case I reviewed State v. Johnson, the court denied the appeal of Johnson advising that they agreed with the court’s decision with regard to the showup identification. The showup identification was done with ten minutes of the crime. In this case Mr. Johnson was convicted of robbery, the clerk advised the police that he was only able to give a height, weight and clothing description, he advised that he could only see the suspects eyes and top of his nose. The clerk was driven by the suspect, Johnson, who was not wearing a ski jacket or cap, the clerk could not immediately identify Johnson as the suspect. After the clerk carefully reviewed Johnson, he then clearly identified him as the offender. Johnson’s appeal was to have the identification suppressed as he felt it was an unduly suggestive identification process. The court relied on “totality of circumstances” using the basis of facts and context to make a determination. In this case they felt that 1) the clerk had three minutes to view the suspect 2) the clerk described what the suspect was wearing and the suspects color (when arrested the suspect was not wearing a ski jacket or cap), 3) the clerk testified that he was certain he could identify the suspect and 4) there was approximately ten minutes between the crime and the showup (State v. Johnson, 1993). I feel that the determination made in this case is fair and that all of the evidence was properly looked at. The court made the right decision in upholding the showup identification as it pertains to the definition of showup. The suspect was identified within ten minutes of the actual crime and the store clerk had a good description of the suspect. With both State v. Johnson and Neil v. Biggers, it is important to look at the time lapse between the crime and the identification. While in State v Johnson, there was only a ten-minute lapse and the clerk had the suspect fresh in his mind. While in Neil v. Biggers, the victim did not identify the suspect until seven months after the assault.
