16 Pages Posted: 4 Aug 2009 Last revised: 24 Mar 2010
Date Written: August 4, 2009
Despite the paramount importance of identification evidence in criminal trials, Supreme Court precedents on the subject have been confusing and confused. The result is widespread misapplication of proper constitutional doctrine: lower courts habitually admit evidence of suggestive identification procedures if they find such procedures to have been ‘necessitated’ by circumstances on the ground. Such reasoning misinterprets the governing Supreme Court cases and, in any event, makes little sense. Whether necessary or not, evidence of suggestive identification procedures, and any consequent in-court identifications, must be excluded from trial unless supported by sufficient indicia of reliability.
Keywords: criminal procedure, due process, identification procedures, suggestive identification procedures, admissibility
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Raban, Ofer, On Suggestive and Necessary Identification Procedures (August 4, 2009). American Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 37, 2009. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1443621