Abstract
Juries believe eyewitnesses. When an identifying eyewitness takes the stand and points to a defendant in a courtroom, the jury is more likely to render a guilty verdict. But how reliable is that identification? What if the eyewitness is on the stand identifying a perpetrator for the first time, in the court room, rather than at the police station with a lineup or photo array? How do those suggestive circumstances implicate a criminal defendant’s due process rights?
First-time in-court identifications are inherently suggestive. While the Supreme Court has acknowledged the suggestive nature of similar identifications, it did not directly address first-time in-court identifications in its most recent eyewitness identification case, Perry v. New Hampshire. State and lower federal courts have filled the void in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, but they remain divided on how to handle identifications occurring for the first time in the courtroom. Some courts opt to require a preliminary screening to assess the reliability of the identification prior to in-court admission, while other courts maintain that traditional trial procedures, such as cross-examination, the right to counsel, and jury instructions, adequately protect defendants.
After Perry, some state courts have provided defendants with additional protections. The high courts of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Michigan all recognize the inherent suggestiveness of first-time in-court identifications and have adopted different procedures to protect defendants against the risks of misidentification.
This Note explores the problems with first-time in-court identifications, the inadequacy of the Supreme Court’s current jurisprudence, and several states’ approaches to offering additional protection for defendants facing a first-time in-court identification. This Note calls for state and federal courts to adopt a more stringent standard of admissibility for first-time in-court identifications, and also urges courts to construe Perry broadly to encompass actions by prosecutors. Additional protections are necessary, and even critical, to prevent misidentifications that lead to wrongful convictions. Reforming the way trial courts handle first-time in-court identifications is one way to protect the rights of criminal defendants.
Recommended Citation
Natalie Beers, Guess Who?: First-Time In-Court Identifications and Due Process, 81 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1201 (2024).Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol81/iss3/11
Included in
Courts Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Evidence Commons, Fourteenth Amendment Commons, Litigation Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons