22 Cited authorities

Perry v. New Hampshire
565 U.S. 228 (2012) Cited 1,357 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts need not inquire into the reliability of an eyewitness identification when it is not procured "under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances"
Stovall v. Denno
388 U.S. 293 (1967) Cited 5,308 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a suggestive show-up was "imperative" where it was not clear how long the person making the identification would live; she was not able to visit the jail; taking the defendant to the hospital room was the only feasible procedure; and a line-up at the police station was not possible
State v. Henderson
208 N.J. 208 (N.J. 2011) Cited 703 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a jury instruction on cross-racial identification should be given whenever cross-racial identification is in issue at trial
Commonwealth v. Crayton
470 Mass. 228 (Mass. 2014) Cited 328 times
Holding that defendant has burden to establish that there is no good reason for admission of in-court identification and noting that “there may be good reason ... [when] the eyewitness was familiar with the defendant before the commission of the crime ... [or when] the witness is an arresting officer who was also an eyewitness to the commission of the crime, and the identification merely confirms that the defendant is the person who was arrested for the charged crime”
State v. Guilbert
306 Conn. 218 (Conn. 2012) Cited 140 times
Holding that defendant should be permitted to offer expert testimony if state relies on eyewitness identification, deeming comprehensive jury instructions inadequate substitute
State v. Lawson
352 Or. 724 (Or. 2012) Cited 118 times
Holding that witnesses’ identifications were proper because they were based on prior untainted observations and not the result of a later unduly suggestive procedure
State v. Copeland
226 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. 2007) Cited 133 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding error where trial court prohibited expert testimony on reliability of eyewitness identification
Commonwealth v. Gomes
470 Mass. 352 (Mass. 2015) Cited 104 times
Concluding that "there are scientific principles regarding eyewitness identification that are ‘so generally accepted’ that it is appropriate in the future to instruct juries regarding these principles"
State v. Smith
224 N.J. 36 (N.J. 2016) Cited 79 times
Finding whether a mistrial is necessary requires consideration of the strength of the evidence present
State v. Cromedy
158 N.J. 112 (N.J. 1999) Cited 118 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that cross-racial instruction should be given only when identification is a central issue in the case and the identification is not corroborated by other evidence giving it independent reliability

The People, Respondent,v.Otis Boone, Appellant.

22 Cited authorities

Holding that courts need not inquire into the reliability of an eyewitness identification when it is not procured "under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances"

Holding that a suggestive show-up was "imperative" where it was not clear how long the person making the identification would live; she was not able to visit the jail; taking the defendant to the hospital room was the only feasible procedure; and a line-up at the police station was not possible

Holding a jury instruction on cross-racial identification should be given whenever cross-racial identification is in issue at trial

Holding that defendant should be permitted to offer expert testimony if state relies on eyewitness identification, deeming comprehensive jury instructions inadequate substitute

Holding that witnesses’ identifications were proper because they were based on prior untainted observations and not the result of a later unduly suggestive procedure

Finding error where trial court prohibited expert testimony on reliability of eyewitness identification

Concluding that "there are scientific principles regarding eyewitness identification that are ‘so generally accepted’ that it is appropriate in the future to instruct juries regarding these principles"

Finding whether a mistrial is necessary requires consideration of the strength of the evidence present

Holding that cross-racial instruction should be given only when identification is a central issue in the case and the identification is not corroborated by other evidence giving it independent reliability