No, the way the woman identified the man was fair enough. Even though she only saw pictures of one man's tattoos, which could seem unfair, other things make her identification reliable. The woman had a chance to see the attacker during the crime and paid very close attention because she knew she needed to remember what he looked like. She gave a good description of him right after the attack. When she saw his picture years later, she was very sure it was him. Even though a lot of time passed, she had looked at many pictures over the years trying to find her attacker. When we look at all of these things together, we believe her identification of the man and his tattoos is reliable enough to use in court. The lower court was right to allow it.

Yes, it was fair. The court decided that the way the woman recognized the man who attacked her was reliable. She saw him clearly during the attack and recognized him quickly from photos later. The court thought her memory and the process of identifying him were trustworthy.

No. The identification procedure, although involving only the defendant's photographs and tattoos, was not impermissibly suggestive. I find that the victim had a significant opportunity to view the attacker during the incident, and her identification was detailed and immediate. The reliability of the victim's testimony outweighs any suggestiveness in the procedure. In analyzing the factors from Neil v. Biggers, I conclude that: (1) the victim had a limited but sufficient opportunity to view her attacker during the crime; (2) the victim's degree of attention was very high as she knew she needed to study her attacker to identify him; (3) the victim's prior description of the attacker was sufficiently detailed and accurate; (4) the victim demonstrated a high level of certainty in her identification; and (5) while the 5-year time gap between the crime and identification is long, the victim had viewed hundreds of photos in the interim. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I find that both the photographic identification of the defendant and the identification of his tattoos were reliable and admissible. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.

Yes. The court found that the identification procedure, although involving only the defendant's photographs and tattoos, was not impermissibly suggestive. The victim had a significant opportunity to view the attacker during the incident, and her identification was detailed and immediate. The court emphasized the reliability of the victim's testimony and the lack of evidence suggesting a substantial likelihood of misidentification.

State v. Scarborough

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot