Identification Procedures - Essay Example

Identification procedures Explain each procedure and discuss their uses. Discuss how each procedure is performed and whether or not each one constitutes admissible evidence at a trial and the rationale for admitting it or not admitting it. Your papers should include cases that illustrate each procedure. The paramount concern of a court when deciding the admissibility of pretrial identification procedures is maintaining the constitutional rights of the defendant. It is crucial that the means by which a suspect was identified were not tainted or skewed in any way. After all, the liberty and in some jurisdictions life of a man are at stake and one wrong ruling can completely re-route the course of a trial. Against that backdrop, there are several types of pretrial identifications employed by law enforcement. With respect to lineups, showups, on-the-scene identifications, and photographic or sketch identification, the requirements of due process must also be met before the prior identification may be admitted. The pretrial identification procedure of course may not be suggestive unless required by the exigencies of the circumstances. However admission into evidence of testimony concerning a suggestive identification not required by the exigencies of the circumstances does not violate due process so long as the identification possesses sufficient aspects of reliability so that there is not a very substantial likelihood of misidentification. Factors to be considered in determining reliability include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation. Against these factors is to be weighed the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself. If the pretrial identification is excluded by application of the foregoing standard, an in court identification will not be permitted if the pretrial procedure had been so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. This paper discusses three such types of identification and their uses in the judicial system. One type of identification of a prospective defendant, and the least popular, is known as the single show up. Generally, a showup in which a witness views only one suspect has been held to be suggestive. Bratcher v. McCray, 419 F. Supp. 2d 352 (W.D. N.Y. 2006). As a result, this method is generally not preferred. State v. Gibbs, 864 So. 2d 866 (La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003). However, a single man lineup even when requested by the accused has been held to be proper if the procedure is ruled to be reliable and it does not violate due process. U.S. v. McGrath, 89 F. Supp. 2d 569 (E.D. Pa. 2000). A showup may be proper under the following circumstances: where it occurs shortly after the alleged crime1 near the scene of the crime2as the witness' memory is still fresh3, and the suspect has not had time to alter his or her looks or dispose of evidence,4 and the showup may expedite the release of innocent suspects, and enable the police to determine whether to continue searching. State v. Mansfield, 343 S.C. 66 (Ct. App. 2000). The jurisdictions are somewhat varied but under some, pretrial showup identification procedures are only permissible under the following circumstances: 1. Where exigent circumstances require it People v. Matthews, 257 A.D.2d 635, 684 N.Y.S.2d 564 (2d Dep't 1999). 2. The suspects are found at or near the crime scene and an immediate viewing may be held. People v. Matthews, 257 A.D.2d 635, 684 N.Y.S.2d 564 (2d Dep't 1999). While some jurisdictions have ruled that exigent circumstances are not required, courts have held that exigent circumstances have not been demonstrated where the suspect was not in direct flight , the witness's life was not in peril and a lineup or photographic lineup were not impracticable. Ex parte Frazier, 729 So. 2d 253 (Ala. 1998). The main components that the court looks to in deciding the admissibility of the one man lineup is 1)The nature of the crime involved and corresponding concerns for public safety; 2) the need for efficient police investigation in the immediate aftermath of a crime; and 3) the usefulness of prompt confirmation of the accuracy of investigatory information, which, if in error, will release the police quickly to follow another track, are relevant factors to consider. Com. v. Hill, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 131 (2005), review denied, 445 Mass. 1104 (2005). The closer in time and place to the scene of the crime, the less objectionable is a showup. State v. Mansfield, 343 S.C. 66 (Ct. App. 2000). In order to escape challenges to admissibility, showups should not be conducted in police stations, squad cars or with the suspect in handcuffs that are visible to any witness. For obvious reasons, this would prejudice the witness in making their identification. A second form of identification is a line up. For the most part, line up testimony is applied to the weight of the evidence. The California Supreme Court, in People v Caruso5 held that the manner in which a lineup was conducted affected its admissibility as evidence, not merely its weight. In Illinois, the court in People v Blumenshine6 holding that, generally, identification testimony based on an improperly conducted lineup would be inadmissible, concluded that its earlier decisions to the contrary were to be considered as overruled. Further, the court in People v Wilson7 held that testimony concerning a lineup identification would be excluded because the lineup was improperly conducted in that the defendant's short height was in marked contrast to that of the other participants. the court, in (1969), 174 NW2d 79, may have impliedly overruled its decision in People v Lloyd (1967) 5 Mich App 717, 147 NW2d 740, where it had held that the defendant's distinctive physical features, compared to those of the other persons in the lineup, went to the weight, not to the admissibility, of the lineup identification. This is somewhat similar to a show up however as its' name implies, there are a line of people shown to the witness and the identification is made from viewing the line up. A defendant's right to due process of law protects him from introduction of evidence of identification ruled unreliable because it resulted from unnecessary suggestive lineup procedure. Interestingly though, research indicates that the country is rather varied in its' interpretation of what is deemed as "suggestive". In People v Brown8 the court held that the identification of the two defendants, who were both African American by the witness, who, upon the suggestion of a police officer, looked at them through a small window into the other room, where the only occupants were the two defendants and a detective, who was white, was not prejudicial, and that it was not therefore erroneous to have allowed evidence of the identification. In Ashby v. Senkowski9 the court found that the line-up identification procedure in a prosecution for murder and other offenses was not improperly suggestive in violation of defendant's due process rights where defendant was represented by an attorney at the identification, was given the opportunity to and did choose a position in the line-up, there were five fillers used, all of similar age and each wearing a hat to disguise hairstyles, and in order to counteract any differences in clothing or height, the men were seated and covered in sheets. A third form of identification is found in the photograph identification. A photographic array or lineup may be ruled impermissibly suggestive if the attention of the witness is improperly focused on the suspect. People v. Colon, 24 A.D.3d 1114, (3d Dep't 2005), leave to appeal denied, 6 N.Y.3d 811 (2006). An example of undue influence has been ruled when the accused is the only person in the lineup fitting the suspects's description10,or if there is a gross disparity between the defendant's photograph and the remaining photographs11,but may nevertheless be valid if the identification is reliable12. It is not necessary that the persons in the array be identical, nearly identical, or be look-alikes, or that the photographs be uniform with respect to a given characteristic,provided the persons have the same general characteristics, are similar or resemble each other,or at least roughly fit a description of the perpetrator. U.S. v. Riblet, 91 Fed. Appx. 128 (10th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 925 (2004). 2. Discuss how the law of the use of defendants' statements have been shaped by the following three cases: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966) Harris v. United States, 401 US 222 (1971) Mincey v. Arizona, 491 US 385 (1978) Discuss the issue each case addressed and how the each case contributed to the law of the use of a defendant's statement. Under what circumstances may a statement be used or not used according to each case How did each case re-define, expand or limit the law on the use of a defendant's statement. Are the holdings consistent with each other or do they conflict and if they conflict, how do you resolve (if you CAN resolve) the conflict The momentous decision of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) set forth rules of police procedure applicable to custodial interrogations. The United States Supreme Court there explained that custodial interrogation means, "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." 384 U.S. at 444. It should be noted however, that any interview will have coercive elements to it, simply by virtue of the fact that the police officer is part of a law enforcement system that may ultimately cause the interviewee to be charged with a crime. But police officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question. Nor is the requirement of warnings to be imposed simply because the questioning takes place in the police station, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect. Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him "in custody." Miranda warnings are due only when a suspect interrogated by the police is in custody. A "custodial interrogation" that triggers the requirement that law enforcement officers administer Miranda warnings is defined as questioning initiated by such officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way. U.S. v. Batista-Polanco, 927 F.2d 14 (1st Cir. 1991). Research indicates that there are two questions that are essential to the determination of whether a suspect was in custody at the time of an interrogation: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. U.S. v. Jones, 352 F. Supp. 369 (S.D. Ga. 1972). The issue arises as to what constitutes "custodial interrogation" by a police officer within the rule of Miranda, requiring that a suspect be informed of his or her federal constitutional rights before the custodial interrogation occurs, when the purported interrogation occurs at the defendant's, or a third party's, residence. U.S. v. Jones, 352 F. Supp. 369 (S.D. Ga. 1972). In Harris v. New York 401 U.S. 222, (1971), the United States Supreme Court held that the prosecution may use a defendant's prior inconsistent statement as rebuttal testimony to impeach the defendant's credibility, regardless of whether there was compliance with Miranda. As long as the defendant's statement was voluntary, the prosecution may use the statement to impeach the defendant. Michigan v. Harvey 494 U.S. 344, 350, (1990). Statements made involuntarily may not be admitted at trial against a defendant for any purpose. New Jersey v. Portash, 440 U.S. 450 (1979). "[A]ny criminal trial use against a defendant of his involuntary statement is a denial of due process of law." Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 398, (1978)) (emphasis by the quoted court). Due process requires that any statement by a defendant be the product of "a rational intellect and a free will" before it may be used for any purpose against that defendant at trial. Before there can be a violation of due process, there must be state action to coerce a statement or overreaching in attempting to secure a statement under circumstances in which the state should know that a defendant's statement could not be knowing and voluntary. Accordingly, there is no conflict with the Miranda rights. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents. Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, unless within specific, well-defined exceptions. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978). Two such exceptions are searches justified by exigent circumstances and consent searches. When valid consent is given, Fourth Amendment rights are waived and the search may be conducted without probable cause or warrant. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973). Warrantless searches or seizures are reasonable when exigent circumstances and probable cause exist. Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, (1973). as to exigent circumstances, they exist only where real immediate and serious consequences would certainly occur were a police officer to postpone action to get a warrant. United States v. Williams, 354 F.3d 497, 503 (6th Cir.2003). There must be a "need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury." Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978). Furthermore when authorities seek to enter a home in order to remove a child from his parent's custody, exigent circumstances do not exist where there is no evidence that the child was in immediate threat of death or severe physical harm. Finally, while the question asks that the conflicts between the cases be resolved. None exists, what is being dealt with by the courts is the rights of a person, but review of the United States Constitution reveals that there in fact is no conflict. Read More