Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

D. Identification procedure

State v. Alexander Jerome Wiley, 2012AP71-CR, District 1, 12/11/12 court of appeals decision (3 judge; not recommended for publication); case activity Wiley, a co-defendant in a reckless homicide case, moved the circuit court to exclude the in-court identification testimony of an eyewitness to the crime who had picked Wiley out of a photo array. He argued that… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Scott E. Ziegler, 2012 WI 73, on certification; case activity Interfering with Child Custody, § 948.31(2) – Elements Language in State v. Bowden, 2007 WI App 234, ¶18, 306 Wis. 2d 393, 742 N.W.2d 332, that one method of violating § 948.31(2) (interference with child custody) requires the parent’s “initial permission” to take child, is now “withdrawn”: ¶52  Pursuant to the plain… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Kwesi B. Amonoo, 2011AP566, District 1, 1/24/12 court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Amonoo: Robert N. Meyeroff; case activity Amonoo fails to show that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance with respect to pretrial identification procedure (context: “sufficient reason” to overcome serial litigation bar following direct appeal): ¶15      Amonoo contends that of… Read More

{ 1 comment }

Eyewitness ID Instructions and …

… Perry v. New Hampshire: The Federal Evidence Blog gauges the impact of last-week’s decision relegating “happenstance” but suggestive ID procedure to jury (rather than due process) determination. Pointing out that Perry highlights 5 “protections” against unreliable IDs, the post keys on appropriate jury instructions (and promises to “review some of these [other] key protections in upcoming posts”; might… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Barion Perry v. New Hampshire, USSC No. 10-8974, 1/11/12, affirming State v. Perry (N.H. sup. ct. 11/18/10) For purposes of due process, a pretrial identification isn’t suppressible unless the product of improper law enforcement activity. We have not extended pretrial screening for reliability to cases in which the suggestive circumstances were not arranged by law enforcement officers. Petitioner… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Line-Up

State v. Jose A. Reas-Mendez, 2010AP1485-CR, District 1, 8/23/11 court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Reas-Mendez: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity The victim’s pretrial lineup identification of Reas-Mendez isn’t suppressible: the lineup was comprised of “four men, all of generally the same build, in the same type of clothing, with… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Docket Decision below: New Hampshire Supreme Court, No. 2009-0590, 11/18/2010 (summary order); Perry’s brief below; New Hampshire’s brief below Question Presented: 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… Read More

{ 1 comment }

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… Read More

{ 0 comments }