|
|
|
| Eyewitness ID/Line-Ups |
|
People v. Carlos,
No. B178957 (Cal. App., Div. I, April 19, 2006): Suggestive photo-array winner! Very tidy winner on a claim of unduly suggestive six-photo array. The opinion reproduced the photos in the opinion and you can see why the "six-pack" as it is called is unduly suggestive--the case name and information is printed directly below the photo of the hapless Carlos.
|
|
|
United States v. Brownlee,
No. 04-4134 (3rd Cir., July 18, 2006): 1. Eyewitness ID/Line-Ups; 2. Interrogations/Fifth Amendment: Very instructive case in which a carjacking conviction was reversed and remanded for new trial on the basis of the District Court's exclusion of the defendant's expert testimony concerning eyewitness identifications and old-fashioned interrogation of the accused without Miranda warnings. The defense at trial was mistaken identity by the eyewitnesses.
|
|
|
Head v. State,
2006 OK CR 44 (Okl.Cr., October 24, 2006): After Formers; Eyewitness ID/Line-Ups; Residue: Head was convicted of Robbery in the First Degree, Resisting Arrest, Possession of CDS (Crack), and Possession of Paraphernalia in Oklahoma County (Judge Susan P. Caswell). AFFIRMED over several claims: 1) Sufficiency of the Evidence regarding the Possession of CDS count: this is a "charred residue" case in which the Court noted that it had held previously that the statute does not prescribe a minimum amount of CDS that must be possessed but held that even if residue is insufficient, the State presented enough evidence to convict by introducing Mr. Head's statement, "[l]eave me alone, I didn't take nothing. I was just smoking crack;" 2) double punishment (no double punishment for conviction of Possession of CDS and Possession of Paraphernalia); 3) improper testimony by the police officer concerning identification of Head by the complaining witness; and 4) sentencing errors involving IAC for failure to move to redact the Judgments and Sentences of the priors and jury consideration of parole (it sent a note saying "[d]o sentences run concurrently?"); and 5) excessive sentence.
|
|
|
Bell v. Miller,
No. 05-5235 (2nd Cir., August 31, 2007): Eyewitness ID/Line-Ups: Habeas winner on an IAC claim where an eyewitness was the only evidence linking Bell to the crimes (Robbery and Assault), but the witness was shot in the thigh, lost half his blood, was heavily medicated, and lapsed into a coma for eleven days before recovering and identifying Bell. Counsel was ineffective for failing to consult with an expert on the reliability of the identification.
|
|
United States v. Contreras,
No. 07-2145 (10th Cir., August 18, 2008) (Published): Eyewitness ID/Line-Ups: Bank Robbery conviction AFFIRMED over claims that testimony from a probation officer identifying Contreras on surveillance footage violated Rule 701 (since the jury could look at it themselves and determine whether it was Contreras), and the testimony did not violate Rule 403 as being unduly prejudicial. NOTE: The panel disagreed with a Sixth Circuit case on this point.
|
|
|
|
