Opinion ID: 2320518
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Pretrial Identification Challenges

Text: The trial court held a hearing and briefing on Monroe's motion to suppress out-of-court eyewitness identifications made by Brown and Meier. Following that hearing, the trial judge denied Monroe's motion to suppress the identifications made by both witnesses, finding that the procedures employed by police with regard to Brown and Meier were not impermissibly suggestive and did not result in a violation of Monroe's due process rights. Monroe argues that the Superior Court incorrectly applied the law to the facts of his case. A pretrial identification procedure that is so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [31] The fact that a pretrial identification procedure is impermissibly suggestive, however, does not ipso facto constitute a due process violation. [32] An impermissibly suggestive identification procedure must also create the danger of an irreparable misidentification. [33] If the trial court determines, under the totality of the circumstances, that a pretrial identification procedure is impermissibly suggestive but the identification is nevertheless reliable, evidence of the pretrial identification will not be excluded at trial. [34] In Younger, this Court noted that to determine whether a pretrial identification will be admissible as evidence, the trial judge must apply a two-tiered analysis. [35] First, the trial judge must determine whether the pretrial identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive. That is, the trial judge must decide if the identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. [36] Second, if the trial judge determines that a lineup procedure is impermissibly suggestive, he or she must determine whether the identification is nonetheless reliable. [37] To determine the reliability of the identification, the trial judge must apply the Neil v. Biggers totality of the circumstances test and consider: first, the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the offense; second, the witness' degree of attention; third, the accuracy of the prior description; fourth, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation; and fifth, the length of time between the crime and confrontation. [38]