Today the Supreme Court of the United States held that "[t]he Due Process Clause does not require a preliminary judicial inquiry into the reliability of an eyewitness identification when the identification was not procured under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances arranged by law enforcement." Part of the reason the Court held as it did is that there is nothing to deter the State from doing when the State has no part in creating the unnecessarily suggestive circumstances which could lead to an unreliable identification. In the case of Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. __ (2012), the eyewitness who identified Perry pointed out her window at the man standing next to the police officer. Perry just happened to be standing next to the police officer and this circumstance was not set up by law enforcement. With no preliminary judicial inquiry, it was for the jury to decide how reliable the identification was. The jury found it reliable enough since it found Perry guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of theft. Read the decision in Perry v. New Hampshire, here.
If you are accused of a crime or have been convicted already, contact me if you can afford to hire a private criminal defense lawyer. Otherwise, contact your county or state public defender to see if they can help.
Contact me 24/7 by sending an email to ohiocriminalappealslawyer@gmail.com
