CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - DUE PROCESS FAIRNESS REQUIRES THAT ACCUSED BE GIVEN A PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY RIGHT TO A LINEUP WHEN EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION IS A MATERIAL ISSUE AND THERE IS A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY OF AN INITIAL, ETC

• NCJ Number: 19748
• Journal: Catholic University Law Review Volume: 24 Issue: 2 Dated: (WINTER 1975) Pages: 360-367
• Author(s): E C MONAHAN
• Date Published: 1975
• Length: 8 pages
• Corporate Author: Catholic University of America
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THIS NOTE EXPLORES THE DISCOVERY DUE PROCESS PRINCIPLES WHICH SERVED AS A BASIS FOR THIS 1974 RULING OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IN EVANS V. SUPERIOR COURT AND THEIR APPLICATION TO PRE-TRIAL IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE.

Abstract

SEVERAL U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS WHICH DEVELOPED THE COURTS THREE DISCOVERY PRINCIPLES ARE CITED. THESE PRINCIPLES REQUIRE PRETRIAL DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE THAT IS MATERIAL, AND EXCULPATORY OR FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENDANT; PRETRIAL DISCLOSURE OF THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF AN INFORMANT WHO MIGHT HAVE INFORMATION PERTINENT TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILTY OR INNOCENCE; AND RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE. THE AUTHOR POINTS OUT THAT THE EVANS COURT FELL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PROSECUTION'S DUTY TO DISCLOSE SINCE IT CONSTITUTED SUBSTANTIAL AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENSE. ALSO DISCUSSED ARE THE CRITERIA, SET UP BY THE EVANS COURT, WHICH MUST BE SATISFIED BEFORE THE ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO A LINEUP - THE EXISTENCE OF A MATERIAL ISSUE OF IDENTITY, A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT A MIS-IDENTIFICATION OCCURRED, AND A TENDENCY OF A LINEUP TO RESOLVE ANY MISTAKE. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT PRE-TRIAL LINEUP PROCEDURES ARE NECESSARY IF THE ACCUSED IS TO OBTAIN RELIABLE AND INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE WHICH ENABLES HIM TO CHALLENGE AN IDENTIFICATION WHICH MAY BE INACCURATE.