CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Opinion & Scientific Evidence
......Forensic Issues
.........Criminal
............Eyewitness Identification
 34 Cards On This Topic:
  • Neither photospread nor FBI Agent's procedure of showing eyewitnesses the surveillance photo of robber before they scrutinized the photospread was impermissibly suggestive.
  • Suppression of statements W made after D's picture broadcast not required as W came forward and testified voluntarily and testimony was too attenuated to be "fruit" of D's claimed unlawful stmts and arrest.
  • D failed to establish live lineup, which included D and co-D, was unduly suggestive and unnecessary.
  • No error in refusing to allow Ds to call DA expert re photo lineups where E had no expertise on psych. factors involved in eyewitness I.D., had only been a homicide det. a short time and had not prepared Ds' lineups.
  • Although suggestive to a degree, having eyewitness I.D. D's photos on eve of trial was not an impermissibly suggestive, unreliable procedure.
  • No error in witness ID'ing D by having him show his tattooed arms in court—no reason a different standard should apply to I.D. of a tattoo than to other physical characteristics witness may rely on to make in-court I.D.
  • Pretrial and in-court I.D.s of attempted murder V and an eyewitness were not tainted by unduly suggestive procedures.
  • Reasonable, credible evidence supported jury's finding D shot and killed V where, inter alia, eyewitnesses ID'd D as having a ponytail and as the shooter the morning after the shooting.
  • Harmless error to admit evidence of extrajudicial I.D. of D in prior robbery given criminal incident was merely one of a long series of prior crimes the DA proved at the penalty phase.
  • D failed to show pretrial and in-court identification procedures were unduly suggestive or unreliable.
  • Lineup not impermissibly suggestive because D alone was wearing "gang-type" clothes, had "droopy eye," and photo discolored; live lineup not impermissibly suggestive for D’s gang tattoo where none of Ws saw it on gunman’s head.
  • Not reasonable jury would have interpreted W's comment on shooter's hair as "nappy" or D's as "better kept today" as an ID-W plainly comparing D's hair "today" to hair in photos of D.
  • No error in admitting eyewitness I.D.s where no evidence Ws conferred while being brought to station together for 2d photo lineup, and, in view of original I.D.s, likelihood of undue suggestiveness was minimal.
  • Photo lineup I.D.s properly admitted where any differences immaterial and Ws instructed to consider ••persons•• depicted, not whether particular image was distinguishable based on variations in composition or processing.
  • Cumulative corroborative effect of testimony of D's admissions was sufficient to give independent reliability to eyewitness identification.
  • D did not show identification procedures used in photo lineup were unnecessarily suggestive.
  • Expert testimony regarding factors generally affecting reliability of eyewitness I.D. not relevant to D's motive to kill V who identified him as robber.
  • D not entitled to lineup to test eyewitness ID's from unadjudicated crime 5 years before.
  • To admit or exclude expert testimony on psychological factors affecting eyewitness ID remains primarily matter within court's discretion.
  • When eyewitness subjected to undue suggestion, jury must still hear and evaluate I.D. testimony unless totality of circs suggests substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.
  • Failure to give instruction on factors to consider in weighing eyewitness IDs held error; proper instructions discussed.
  • Expert opinion on problems of eyewitness ID admissible.
  • Because photo six-pack included one other person with long hair and only 3 of 6 Vs could identify D, plainly the lineup was not unduly suggestive—no requirement that D be in a lineup with people nearly identical in appearance.
  • Where D failed to establish trial counsel did not consult an expert or that an expert would have provided favorable testimony, D did not show counsel was deficient in failing to present expert eyewitness I.D. testimony.
  • Pretrial and in-court identification procedures used with several witnesses were not unduly suggestive.
  • Where lineup photos of males of same ethnicity and around same age, complexion, and build, and D's photo does not stand out, I.D. procedure sufficiently neutral, lineup not impermissibly suggestive.
  • Trial court did not violate D's constitut'l rights by disallowing testimony by eyewitness I.D. expert where eyewitness testimony, D's admissions, and other corroborating evidence gave independent reliability to eyewitnesses' I.D.
  • Reversible error to admit pretrial photo array where labeling and placement of D’s photo made it stand out, array not timely disclosed to defense, continuance request denied, and none of Ws identified D at trial.
  • Expert testimony on eyewitness ID properly excluded where case did not meet McDonald Test.
  • Indigent D fails to show services of eyewitness identification expert are ••necessary•• so as to entitle him to public funds.
  • Expert testimony on eyewitness ID may sometimes be excluded under Evid. Code §352 (a), but never under (b).
  • Court properly excluded expert's testimony on inaccuracy of eyewitness ID.
  • Dist. court retains broad discretion in admitting or refusing to admit expert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification.
  • Exclusion of expert testimony on general reliability of eyewitness IDs not error; decision to admit or exclude such evidence is within court's discretion.


    •