Stovall v. Denno

15 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. CLARK (WILLIAM CLINTON)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed June 17, 2005

    The crucial role that that identification played in appellant’s conviction and the fact that these same identifications were so unduly suggestive as to violate appellant’s due process rights, requires reversal. The identification conducted in this case was so unnecessarily suggestive and conduciveto irreparable mistaken identification that appellant wasdenied dueprocess of law. Johnsonv. Sublett (9" Cir. 1995) 63 F. 3d 926, 928 (Citing Stovall v. Denno (1967) 388 U.S. 293, 301-02.) When an eyewitness has been subjected to undue suggestion, the fact finder cannot hear and evaluate the identification testimony if the totality of the circumstances 415 suggests that there is a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.

  2. PEOPLE v. MENA

    Respondent’s Answer Brief on the Merits

    Filed January 19, 2010

    Appellant was not the only manstanding before the victim, and courts have held that even where a small numberof individuals are handcuffed, seated in the back of a patrol car, and surroundedbypolice officers, a field show-up is not unduly 26 suggestive. (See, e.g., Stovall v. Denno 388 U.S. 293, 295, 302 [87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199] (overruled on another groundin Griffith v. _ Kentucky, supra, 479 U.S. at p. 314); In re Richard W. (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 960, 969-970; People v. Craig (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 905, 914.) Whatis more,all three defense attorneys cross-examined the witnesses extensively concerning their ability to see the perpetrators at the time of the crime, the circumstances surroundingthe field showup, and the reliability of that identification procedure generally.

  3. PEOPLE v. THOMAS (KEITH TYSON)

    Appellant's Opening Brief

    Filed January 31, 2007

    (Simmons v. United States, supra, 390 U.S. 377, 383-384.) Denial of the motion to exclude the identification resulted in a denial of due process (Stovall v. Denno, supra, 388 U.S. 293, 203) and a miscarriage of justice (id. at p. 297.) Because the identification was 162 crucial to the most substantial factor in aggravation presented during the case-in-aggravation, the penalty decision in this matter does not meet the Eighth Amendment requirement of heightened reliability.

  4. The People, Respondent,v.Kaity Marshall, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed November 17, 2015

    53 See, e.g., United States ex rel. Kirby v. Sturges, 510 F.2d 397, 407 n.32 (7th Cir. 1975). 54 Wade, 388 U.S. at 235-36. 55 Id. at 240.

  5. The People, Respondent,v.Dean Pacquette, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed June 4, 2015

    30(3); Boyer, 6 N.Y.3d at 431; People v. O’Doherty, 70 N.Y.2d 479 (1987). The notice statute was “a legislative response to the problem of suggestive and misleading pretrial identification procedures treated by the Supreme Court in Gilbert v. California 26 [, 388 U.S. 263 (1967)], United States v. Wade [, 388 U.S. 218 (1967)] and Stovall v. Denno [, 388 U.S. 293 (1967)].” People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552 (1979).

  6. PEOPLE v. DAVEGGIO & MICHAUD

    Appellant, Michelle Lyn Michaud, Opening Brief

    Filed March 19, 2010

    And it does not permit conviction based on evidence that is unnecessarily suggestive or conduciveto irreparable mistake. (Stovall v. Denno (1967) 388 U.S. 293, 301-302.) 232 People v. Fitch (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 172 observed that the due process clause has limited operation beyondthe specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights.

  7. PEOPLE v. MENA

    Appellant’s Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed November 19, 2009

    Although a showup is not per se unconstitutional, the risk of misidentification from this procedure has been well known for decades. (See Stovall v. Denno (1967) 388 U.S. 293, 302, overruled on another ground in Griffith v. Kentucky (1987) 479 U.S. 314, 326.) At the showup, at least one suspect was handcuffed (2 RT 186), and the prosecutor agreed that they were all handcuffed.

  8. PEOPLE v. MENA

    Appellant’s Petition for Review

    Filed June 19, 2009

    Although a showup ~ where suspects are shown to the victim one person at a time — is not per se unconstitutional, the risk of misidentification from this procedure has been well known for decades. (See Stovall v. Denno (1967) 388 U.S. 293, 302, overruled on another ground in Griffith v. Kentucky (1987) 479 U.S. 314, 326.) Here, the suspects were shown oneat a time at a distance that Jesus described as “far away.”

  9. In Re: Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation

    REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 17 MOTION for Reconsideration of the Court's October 10, 2007 Order Denying Appellees' Motion to Dismiss.. Document

    Filed October 31, 2007

    Constitutional standing requires limiting Article III jurisdiction to live cases and controversies and it prohibits the issuance of advisory opinions. “[T]he [Supreme] Court explained in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 301 (1967), that ‘[s]ound practices of decision-making, rooted in the command of Article III of the Constitution that we resolve issues solely in cases and controversies, … militate against’ pure prospectivity. Since then, pure prospectivity has seldom been treated as a live alternative.”

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

    Brief

    Filed October 17, 2017

    It also impairs the defendant’s ability to attack the eyewitness’ credibility.”) (citing Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 298 (1967)); accord Commonwealth v. Crayton, 21 N.E.3d 157, 169 (Mass. 2014) (“[W]e have previously recognized how difficult it is for a defense attorney to convince a jury that an eyewitness’s confident identification might be attributable to the suggestive influence of the circumstances surrounding the identification”); State v. Lawson, 291 P.3d 673, 695 (Or. 2012) (“[C]ourts around the country have recognized that traditional methods of informing factfinders of the pitfalls of eyewitness - 10 - witness error is particularly acute where a witness has made an in-court identification. In-court identifications are often the last in a series of identification procedures.