Show-Up Identification Research Paper

An essential part of due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t apply to the Fifth Amendment, the right to a grand jury trial in Hurtado

Identifying who the guilty are is much easier said than done. Identification of the guilty has been an issue for a long time. Often such identifications consisted of using discriminatory categories in order to identify suspects. The police have been discriminating individuals based on their gender, skin color, race, eye color, height and weight (Ingram, 2009). However, these descriptive characteristics are not the only ones the police were using, in fact, blood typing, fingerprinting, and DNA matching, have been added to the list (Ingram, 2009). These types of identification methods cannot be disputed as easily. Of course, DNA can be tainted and people can be framed, but for the most part, it was better

The right to be heard by a jury is when the defendant is given the opportunity to have a trial before their peers, friends and neighbors. This is when they can introduce information that will support their claims. While at the same time, prosecutors will bring forward all relevant facts to demonstrate the guilt of the suspect. This is illustrating how the accused has the right to have their case heard by an impartial third party (i.e. the jury). (Sundahl, 2011)

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

Rules: The Supreme Court uses the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in rendering its decision.

2. Owen claims that a Pennsylvania state statue infringes on his "substantive due process" rights. This claim focuses on: the content of the statute

Plaintiff, Elian Gonzalez, a six year old minor, through his “next of friend”, Lazaro Gonzalez, filed an asylum application with the INS (Immigration & Naturalization Service), which was denied. The plaintiff’s then filed a claim in the federal district court which stated the Plaintiff’s due process rights were violated and the INS had overstepped

Tulin’s picture from the poster, and that Fergile did not initially identify Tulin when shown that poster in the immediate aftermath of the events, there are other problems with the photo array that make its use inappropriate and unconstitutional. Mr. Tulin's photo in the array is darker, appears to be digitalized, and is not as clear. See, e.g., U.S. v. Storey, 97 F.3d 1465 (10th Cir. 1993) (quoting case law for the proposition that in assessing the constitutionality of a photo array courts consider “the size of the array, the manner of its presentation by the officers, and the details of the photographs themselves.”). Agent Watson himself confirmed these problems with the photograph. Tr. pp. 248:5 – 249:10 (confirming that Mr. Tulin’s image in the array is “distorted”, is “darker than the rest” and is obviously “digitalized”, “more difficult to see features”). The array photo is such that it is nearly impossible to make out any facial features of Mr. Tulin. Id. The photo is of such poor quality when compared to the others in the array, and when compared to those in other arrays shown to Fergile, that it plainly stands out from the rest of the photos and requires closer attention to scrutinize. See, e.g., Storey, 97 F.3d at 1465 (photo is constitutionally problematic where it “lead[s] the eye of the unguided viewer to [the defendant’s] photograph”); U.S. v. Mays, 822 F.2d 793,

THE GRENADE SEIZED FROM THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED BECAUSE IT WAS OBTAIINED WITHOUT A WARRANT OR PURSUANT TO ANY WARRANT EXCEPTION IN VIOLATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT

Police conduct is unnecessarily suggestive when there is no good reason to conduct the a show up in the circumstances. Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 9 N.E.3d 812, 823 (Mass. 2014). To determine whether an identification lacked good reason, the court examines the nature of the crime and whether there are any corresponding ongoing public safety concerns. Commonwealth v. Bresilla, 23 N.E.3d 75, 86 (Mass. 2015). Additionally, the need to promote and quick and efficient investigation and validate information in the immediate aftermath of a crime can justify the

Evidence gathered from the scene of an alleged crime is critical to constructing a case against a defendant. However, the Constitution provides that it is absolutely essential for the proper procedures to be abided when gathering said evidence. While the availability of certain evidence items procured at the scene of an alleged crime may appear to reinforce the certainty of a defendant's guilt, the process by which this evidence is gotten will have a determinant impact on the ability of prosecution to prove this guilt. As the analysis hereafter will demonstrate, the 'exclusionary rule' is one of the cornerstone clauses to protecting citizens against undue invasion of privacy and freedom while simultaneously creating important standards of practice for law enforcement personnel. The case of Corley v. United States [No. 07-10441), heard before the United States Supreme Court in 2009 and opined upon by Justice David Souter, includes a prominent weighing of the exclusionary rule. The case of Corley v. U.S. demonstrates the determinant impact which the exclusionary rule can have on the findings and outcome of a case.

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution violated the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause when it failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense, even if the individual prosecutors are unaware of the undisclosed information.

A more common witness identification in a court of law than lineup is photo arrays (Hall, 2015). The Supreme Court ruled that the right to counsel at a photo identification session is not significant (Hall, 2015). This decision stand-fast throughout the entire process of the suspect judicial proceeding. The sixth amendment guarantees a defendant the right to have the support of a counsel in any criminal prosecution. Consequently, since pre-trial identifications usually take place before the start of formal proceedings, the defendant is not entitled to the Sixth Amendment protections (Hall, 2015). In the United States versus Wade, the Supreme Court held that a post-indictment lineup was a critical confrontation, such that the right to counsel

The fact that Brenton was in the back of a police car leads the witness to think that this must be the person that committed the crime since the officers had him in the back seat of a police car. This would lead to an unreliable witness. Any person that had to identify another person suspected of a crime would be suggestible to someone that is seating in the back of police car. In the case of Stovall v. Denno the suspect was taken to the hospital to be identified by the victim. The victim was in critical condition so the officers really had no choice, but to try and get the suspect identified incase she passed away. The suspect was convicted and appealed the conviction. The courts ruled according to Carmen (2010) “We conclude that evidence obtained from an out-of-court showup is inherently suggestive and will not be admissible unless, based on the totality of the circumstances, the procedure was necessary. A showup will not be necessary, however, unless the police lacked probable cause to make an arrest or, as a result of other exigent circumstances, could not have conducted a lineup or photo array. A lineup or photo array is generally fairer than a showup, because it distributes the probability of identification among the number of persons arrayed, thus reducing the risk of a

Due process rights are the cases a criminal litigant has when blamed by the legislature for an unlawful demonstration. The legislature must regard these rights some time recently, amid, and after a criminal trial. Disregarding of any of the due procedure rights will ordinarily void a conviction. In this sense, due process rights can 't be automatically relinquished. One 's entitlement to be free from discretionary captures, detainments, and outcasts is the focal worry of due process rights. A variety of other due process rights backings and actualizes this focal right. A key part of the due procedure rights is the privilege to a reasonable trial.