On Point blog, page 3 of 3
Barion Perry v. New Hampshire, USSC No. 10-8974, cert granted 5/31/11
Decision below: New Hampshire Supreme Court, No. 2009-0590, 11/18/2010 (summary order); Perry’s brief below; New Hampshire’s brief below
When a witness in a criminal case identifies a suspect out-of-court, under suggestive circumstances which give rise to a substantial likelihood of later misidentification, due process requires the trial judge to determine whether the out-ofcourt identification and any subsequent in-court identification are reliable before either may be admitted into evidence.
Due Process – Identification Procedure – Showup ID: Probable Cause Specific to Purpose of ID Unncessary
State v. Jonathan W. Nawrocki, 2008 WI App 23
For Nawrocki: Scott D. Obernberger
Issue/Holding:
¶2 The issue presented in this case is whether a showup identification is necessary, thus meeting the first test of admissibility under Dubose, when probable cause exists to justify an arrest of a suspect, but it does not exist on the particular offense under investigation. [3] We conclude that whenever probable cause exists to justify detention of a suspect,
Due Process – Identifcation Procedure – In-Court ID as Untainted by Impermissible Showup
State v. Jonathan W. Nawrocki, 2008 WI App 23
For Nawrocki: Scott D. Obernberger
Issue/Holding:
¶29 Having concluded that the showup identifications of Nawrocki were not necessary and therefore should have been suppressed, we next must address whether Albert’s and/or Gerhardt’s in-court identifications of Nawrocki were based on an independent source that was untainted by the impermissible showup identification. “[T]he exclusion of evidence of the out-of-court identifications does not deprive the prosecutor of reliable evidence of guilt.
Due Process – Identifcation Procedure – Photo Array: Analysis Unchanged by Dubose Show-up Standard<
State v. Ryan W. Drew, 2007 WI App 213, PFR filed 9/27/07
For Drew: Steven Zaleski
Issue/Holding: Analysis of admissibility of photo array ID remains unchanged by the new standard for show-ups set by State v. Tyrone L. Dubose, 2005 WI 126:
¶2 We conclude that Dubose did not alter the standard for determining whether admission of an out-of-court identification from a photo array violates due process.
Due Process – Identifcation Procedure – Show-up – “Accidental” Encounter
State v. Brian Hibl, 2006 WI 52, reversing 2005 WI App 228
For Hibl: Joel H. Rosenthal
Issue: Whether an identification resulting from an “accidental” encounter between witness and defendant in a courthouse hallway immediately before trial is suppressible, in the absence of any evidence that this incident involved a law enforcement procedure directed at obtaining an identification.
Holding:
¶31 For the reasons stated below,
Due Process – Identification Procedure – Show-up
State v. Tyrone L. Dubose, 2005 WI 126
For Dubose: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the test for admissibility of a pretrial showup should be changed. (“A ‘showup’ is an out-of-court pretrial identification procedure in which a suspect is presented singly to a witness for identification purposes.” ¶1, n. 1, quoting State v. Wolverton, 193 Wis. 2d 234,
Due Process – Judicial Intervention in Presentation of Case
State v. Johnnie Carprue, 2004 WI 111, reversing 2003 WI App 148
For Carprue: Stephanie G. Rapkin
Issue/Holding:
¶58. Carprue contends that he was denied his due process right to a fair trial because Judge Schellinger was not impartial. His evidence consists of the judge’s actions in calling and questioning Morrow and in questioning Carprue.¶59. “A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.”