Opinion ID: 53035
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Direct State Appeal

Text: Irwin appealed his conviction to the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal. In his appeal brief, Irwin argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to 6 suppress DeLacerna’s in-court identification because it was tainted by the prosecutor’s suggestive actions on the day of trial. Irwin also argued that DeLacerna’s earlier crime-scene identification was unreliable. In his brief, Irwin cited both Florida state and United States Supreme Court precedent, such as Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S. Ct. 375 (1972), and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S. Ct. 1967 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 107 S. Ct. 708 (1987), all for the proposition that to protect a defendant’s due process rights, identifications that are the product of unduly suggestive procedures and are unreliable are inadmissable. The Fifth District Court of Appeal summarily affirmed Irwin’s conviction and sentence.