The Due Process Clause and Identifications

VIII. The Due Process Clause and Identifications a. Identification Procedure Between indictment and trial i. Wade - a suspect cannot be subjected to a post-indictment identification procedure w/o the presence of counsel 1. Prosecution needs to show that the identification has to come from a different source if the identification procedure occurs post-indictment ii. The other cases from last class follow Wade and Gilbert 1. Under Stovall, the court states that the right is not retroactive meaning that it does not operate for cases already decided a. The same principal is applied from Wade and Gilbert, but the court decided that that principal does not apply to this case b. What does apply is the 14th amendment due process iii. These days, identification procedures occur during pre-indictment, thus postindictment identification is very rare iv. The identification procedure can be challenged under the 14th Amendment due process clause b. Stovall v. Denno (pg. 963) i. Facts: Physical evidence linked Stovall to the murder of doctor and the stabbing of his wife in their Long Island home. The wife was critically injured and needed surgery to attempt to save her life. The day after the surgery, the police brought Stovall to her hospital room. Stovall was not given an opportunity to retain counsel, was handcuffed to one of five police ofÏcers in the room and was the only black man present. She identified Stovall as the assailant and later identified him in-court at trial. He was convicted and sentenced to death 1. What occurs here is what we call a show-up since there are no other suspects being presented to the victim ii. Court held that there was no violation of due process iii. The 6th amendment holding in Wade didn’t apply to Stovall since it does not apply retroactively iv. A due process violation occurred during the identification procedure since the show-up is considered to be highly suggestive since he is the only black man in handcuffs that the victim can identify 1. There is no other person the victim can compare him to like during a lineup v. The court states that the show-up was not "unneccessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification" 1. Although the show-up was highly suggestive, the victim could not leave the hospital since she was severely injured (not knowing if she was going to live) and she could not have gone to the police station to look at a lineup 2. So the police had to bring the suspect to the hospital for the victim to identify vi. vii. Stovall also tried to bring a 5th Amendment claim 1. But this fails since the statements given during a line-up or a show-up are not testimonial, thus are more like using a writing sample to identify someone Note 2 (Pg. 966) - Foster v California 1. This is what the court deems to be an unconstitutional identification (violation of due process) a. The victim could not identify the suspect so the police had the victim see the suspect one on one and then again at a second lineup where the victim was able to identify him as someone that she recognizes and knows based on all the times that the victim saw the suspect after the first line-up c. Manson v. Brathwaite (Pg. 967) i. Facts: Undercover Trooper Glover engaged in a narcotics transaction at the door of an apartment. The man who answered the door apparently sold the drugs to Glover. Glover didn’t know the identity of the man but described him to a local police ofÏcer who left a photo of a man matching the description. Upon viewing the photo, he identified the person in the photo as the man who sold him the narcotics. Brathwaite was arrested a few months later while visiting the same apartment from which the sale to Glover had taken place. At trial the photo was admitted in evidence and Glover identified the person shown in the photo as defendant and the person in court as the seller ii. The court held that the photo was "unneccessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification" 1. The ofÏcer was only presented with one photo instead of multiple photos of different suspects iii. Court of appeals wanted to adopt a "per se" approach 1. The Per Se Rule is that when the a due process violation occurs the identification must be thrown out and a new trial should be given iv. The Supreme Court adopted the Totality of the Circumstances approach 1. This is more lenient and need to consider the following factors a. The opportunity to view b. The degree of attention c. The accuracy of the description d. The witness' level of certainty e. The time between the crime and the confrontation 2. Dissent states that none of these factors really make much difference to the identification process a. These factors cannot really be depended on even when the person who is doing the identification is a police ofÏcer b. There are a lot more issues that come in to play when an identification occurs v. In choosing the "Totality of the Circumstances" approach the Court weighs the evidentiary interests